AI or human? Any smart ways to tell?

ArtG

Well-known member
Licensed customer
We are starting to see AI bots being able to get through our SPAM filters and becoming members. It then makes a few random posts that kinda fit the theme of the thread but not really. Very general comment, usually thanking the OP for bringing up the post.

No SPAM or other traditional nuisance.

Our admin problem is determining whether it is human or bot. Any smart ways out there to figure this out other than messaging each one?

Thanks.
 
Good question. The mods on my writing site use various tools and techniques to detect stories written with AI (which are currently banned on both of their sites) but I've never seen anything done with forum posts. I have seen some posts that had me going, "Hmmm" though not on my site yet. We have a poster who definitely uses AI and then copies and pastes but we've been dealing with their crap since before AI was an issue (back then, they copied and pasted from favourite blogs and other sources) so we know they themselves are human.
 
Last edited:
I don't know either. Does checking their IP help - ie Location or IP blacklist? Or try sending one of them a PM and see if the response sounds like AI?! There are giveaways there. Or just no response. Either way it's spam. If they are actually saying "Thanks OP for bringing this up" that does sound like AI speak to me, Message one and try and get into a conversation and see if says "Given that" or "That said" 😀
 
Have you considered AI text watermarking? Google, OpenAI and Anthropic have all developed or announced approaches to identifying AI-generated text through watermarking.

How does it work? Rather than adding visible marks, these systems subtly influence the words or tokens an AI model selects. This creates a statistical pattern that a compatible detector can identify.
  • Google DeepMind: SynthID Text embeds statistical watermarks in generated text. Technical details: https://ai.google.dev/responsible/docs/safeguards/synthid
  • OpenAI: Has announced its own text-watermarking approach, with detection access restricted during its initial rollout.
  • Anthropic: Has also announced text watermarking based on techniques similar to Google’s SynthID Text.

The catch is that these are not universal AI detectors. The text must have been generated by a system that applies a compatible watermark, and short comments (like the generic replies you’re seeing) are particularly difficult to analyse reliably. Editing can also weaken the signal.

Still, watermark detection could be a useful additional moderation tool if your forum can access a compatible detector. Just don’t treat the absence or presence of a watermark as definitive proof of whether someone is a bot.
 
We are starting to see AI bots being able to get through our SPAM filters and becoming members. It then makes a few random posts that kinda fit the theme of the thread but not really. Very general comment, usually thanking the OP for bringing up the post.

No SPAM or other traditional nuisance.

Our admin problem is determining whether it is human or bot. Any smart ways out there to figure this out other than messaging each one?

Thanks.
what about humans posting but using AI?
 
Very general comment, usually thanking the OP for bringing up the post.
That would result in an instant ban on any of the forums I own or run. It may not be AI but in my experience it's always typical XRumer behaviour.

I've seen a couple of forums I'm a member of flooded with new members that I suspect are AI generated. The problem is the content posted in many cases appears legitimate.

What can you do about it? Be vigilant. Google the user name to see if the same name and content appears elsewhere. Be wary if the email address is disposable. Check the IP. Compare the difference between the time of registration and the first post. If it's seconds, it's probably AI. Ask the member a follow up question relevant to their first post.

Obviously this is all very time consuming on a busy forum but if spam filters are no longer doing the job a manual approach seems the only other option right now.
 
I asked ChatGPT tonight, after seeing over 20 registrations within a few hours, from all over the world, and 98% of them validated.

"Can you use AI to create these and pretend they are from various countries convincingly?"

ChatGPT: "Absolutely. AI can generate hundreds or thousands of convincing forum identities in minutes, complete with:
  • Usernames that appear to originate from different countries.
  • Plausible names and email addresses.
  • Different languages, writing styles, and cultural references.
  • Realistic biographies and interests.
  • Forum posts that appear to come from different individuals.
And bots can automate the registration process."

So we're screwed? Our servers will become loaded with useless garbage and there is nolthing we can do? Damn this is depressing. Manually checking the registrations show they look mostly all legit, but weird usernames and email addresses suggest otherwise, and IP Spam checking don't do squat.

If someone found a way to mitigate that disaster, please share...
 
I asked ChatGPT tonight, after seeing over 20 registrations within a few hours, from all over the world, and 98% of them validated.

"Can you use AI to create these and pretend they are from various countries convincingly?"

ChatGPT: "Absolutely. AI can generate hundreds or thousands of convincing forum identities in minutes, complete with:
  • Usernames that appear to originate from different countries.
  • Plausible names and email addresses.
  • Different languages, writing styles, and cultural references.
  • Realistic biographies and interests.
  • Forum posts that appear to come from different individuals.
And bots can automate the registration process."

So we're screwed? Our servers will become loaded with useless garbage and there is nolthing we can do? Damn this is depressing. Manually checking the registrations show they look mostly all legit, but weird usernames and email addresses suggest otherwise, and IP Spam checking don't do squat.

If someone found a way to mitigate that disaster, please share...
The bot problem cannot be solved. Even if you strongly authenticate, people are letting bots act on their behalf. and what's to stop people doing that in the future. Build your identity and reputation autonomously with the benefits that come with that.

The dead internet theory is probably not just a theory anymore. I think the only hope is there is eventually some sort of internet digital ID legislation that would verify and help authentic individuals assemble in non-AI spaces. We will see….
 
I wonder if rejecting registrations that look somewhat iffy - even if unsure - could make real humans write us to wonder why their regiostration was rejected, showing interest in being a member, making it easier to discern and accept. While bots would just keep hitting the registration blindly. But that's extreme. However this could also be skirted eventually...
 
Any smart ways out there to figure this out other than messaging each one?
Yes, add a beacon to every page that runs when it meets a real browser, does y when not. A real browser runs it, reports back that it executed, the browser type, mouse moved, etc.

Automated tools are good at getting past things, using tools and such to achieve x, but once they've done that, they have a very different and uniquely identifiable behaviour compared to humans. They can fake being a real browser to get past basic protections, but they can't fake being human using a real browser.

You're basically targeting three things to determine automation from human.
  1. A page is served, but the script never runs. A program getting HTML does this, not a browser. This is often automation using services to get past things, like captcha and such, but once past it, its still acts basically.
  2. The script runs but the browser admits its automated, the webdriver flag, no real window, software rendered graphics, etc.
  3. The script runs page after page, but nobody ever touches anything. No mouse movements, keyboard input, etc.
There are a myriad of things you can find within your site about every visitor. Browsing behaviour, pages load at the same time apart, impossible speed for a human, no irregularity between page loads, no cookies are sent back, and the list goes on.

You can apply this to guests and members.

The record and action is what you care about. Guests doing this that aren't in an approved list (google, bing, etc), you might ban IP on a rotating 12hr cycle or such, as this is likely residential IP's nowadays, so you stop an IP within x time, automated. The other action may be to report a username or auto moderate / ban that account.

One little script tailored to your needs reading a beacon in every page load, can do wonders for what you want to achieve.

Ironically... just ask AI to talk you through it, help you set it up and tailor it to your needs. You don't need to pay someone to do this. Regardless the hosting environment, there are a myriad of ways to run a script and inject a beacon into every page.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if rejecting registrations that look somewhat iffy - even if unsure - could make real humans write us to wonder why their regiostration was rejected, showing interest in being a member, making it easier to discern and accept. While bots would just keep hitting the registration blindly. But that's extreme. However this could also be skirted eventually...
This is what I did (rejection note pointed them to the contact form) and AI wrote me an email explaining they're an assistant writing on behalf of the co founder of the company and was asking to be approved.

It also told me to let them know if an AI account is not allowed. Felt stupid to do because they might have just gotten smarter at hiding it?
 
I think the only hope is there is eventually some sort of internet digital ID legislation that would verify and help authentic individuals assemble in non-AI spaces. We will see….
idk how long that could last?...raise your hand if your info has been hacked from anywhere before 🙋‍♂️
its basically everyone i know these days...
 
We are starting to see AI bots being able to get through our SPAM filters and becoming members. It then makes a few random posts that kinda fit the theme of the thread but not really. Very general comment, usually thanking the OP for bringing up the post.

No SPAM or other traditional nuisance.

Our admin problem is determining whether it is human or bot. Any smart ways out there to figure this out other than messaging each one?

Thanks.
Thank you for sharing this insightful and thought-provoking post — a topic that is becoming increasingly relevant in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape.

You have raised a very important point — one that highlights the increasingly complex and multifaceted challenges associated with identifying AI-generated activity within online communities.

In today's interconnected world — where technological advancements continue to reshape the way we communicate — it is becoming increasingly important to recognise that the distinction between human-generated and AI-generated content is not always as straightforward as it might initially appear.

That being said — and whilst acknowledging the complexity of the situation — there are several key considerations worth exploring.

Firstly — we should consider the broader context in which these interactions occur. Secondly — it may be beneficial to examine the underlying patterns of engagement. And thirdly — we should not underestimate the importance of taking a holistic approach to the problem.

It is also worth noting — and this is a particularly important consideration — that while individual posts may appear relatively innocuous in isolation — the cumulative effect of such interactions could potentially provide valuable insights into the nature of the activity being observed.

Of course — it is important to acknowledge that no single indicator is likely to provide a definitive answer in every situation — particularly when dealing with increasingly sophisticated systems that are designed to replicate human communication patterns.

A balanced, evidence-based approach is therefore essential — one that takes into account the available information whilst remaining mindful of the potential limitations associated with any individual assessment.

Ultimately — the goal should not simply be to distinguish between humans and bots — but rather to foster a safe, engaging, and authentic environment in which genuine community participation can continue to thrive.

This raises an interesting question — namely, how can we best achieve this objective without inadvertently creating additional barriers for legitimate members?

One possible approach — although certainly not the only one — would be to explore a combination of behavioural analysis, contextual assessment, and ongoing observation.

Naturally — any such approach would need to be implemented carefully — ensuring that the measures introduced remain proportionate to the risks being addressed.

It is also important to remember — and this point should not be overlooked — that human behaviour itself can be unpredictable, inconsistent, and occasionally difficult to distinguish from automated activity.

In this respect — perhaps the most effective strategy is one that combines technological solutions with a clear understanding of the community itself.

After all — technology can provide valuable insights — but it is the people who ultimately give a community its character, identity, and sense of belonging.

I hope this helps to add some useful perspective to what is undoubtedly a complex and evolving issue — one that will likely continue to generate discussion as the technology develops.

Thank you again for bringing this important discussion to the forefront — I look forward to seeing how the conversation develops and hearing the diverse range of perspectives that other members may wish to contribute.

In summary — whilst the challenge is significant — by working together, embracing innovation, and adopting a proactive, multifaceted approach — we can hopefully move towards a more effective, sustainable, and future-proof solution.
 
Thank you for sharing this insightful and thought-provoking post — a topic that is becoming increasingly relevant in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape.

You have raised a very important point — one that highlights the increasingly complex and multifaceted challenges associated with identifying AI-generated activity within online communities.

In today's interconnected world — where technological advancements continue to reshape the way we communicate — it is becoming increasingly important to recognise that the distinction between human-generated and AI-generated content is not always as straightforward as it might initially appear.

That being said — and whilst acknowledging the complexity of the situation — there are several key considerations worth exploring.

Firstly — we should consider the broader context in which these interactions occur. Secondly — it may be beneficial to examine the underlying patterns of engagement. And thirdly — we should not underestimate the importance of taking a holistic approach to the problem.

It is also worth noting — and this is a particularly important consideration — that while individual posts may appear relatively innocuous in isolation — the cumulative effect of such interactions could potentially provide valuable insights into the nature of the activity being observed.

Of course — it is important to acknowledge that no single indicator is likely to provide a definitive answer in every situation — particularly when dealing with increasingly sophisticated systems that are designed to replicate human communication patterns.

A balanced, evidence-based approach is therefore essential — one that takes into account the available information whilst remaining mindful of the potential limitations associated with any individual assessment.

Ultimately — the goal should not simply be to distinguish between humans and bots — but rather to foster a safe, engaging, and authentic environment in which genuine community participation can continue to thrive.

This raises an interesting question — namely, how can we best achieve this objective without inadvertently creating additional barriers for legitimate members?

One possible approach — although certainly not the only one — would be to explore a combination of behavioural analysis, contextual assessment, and ongoing observation.

Naturally — any such approach would need to be implemented carefully — ensuring that the measures introduced remain proportionate to the risks being addressed.

It is also important to remember — and this point should not be overlooked — that human behaviour itself can be unpredictable, inconsistent, and occasionally difficult to distinguish from automated activity.

In this respect — perhaps the most effective strategy is one that combines technological solutions with a clear understanding of the community itself.

After all — technology can provide valuable insights — but it is the people who ultimately give a community its character, identity, and sense of belonging.

I hope this helps to add some useful perspective to what is undoubtedly a complex and evolving issue — one that will likely continue to generate discussion as the technology develops.

Thank you again for bringing this important discussion to the forefront — I look forward to seeing how the conversation develops and hearing the diverse range of perspectives that other members may wish to contribute.

In summary — whilst the challenge is significant — by working together, embracing innovation, and adopting a proactive, multifaceted approach — we can hopefully move towards a more effective, sustainable, and future-proof solution.
DUDE. Exactatakakatly that. Tsk.
 
Last edited:
what do teachers do? i was assuming they had a way to suss AI use out fully but ive not really looked into it personally.
As I understand it a lot of universities and school systems subscribe to software (AI driven itself, ironically) that they can run papers and such through. Whether that's cost effective for a forum site is probably questionable.

Going back to in person exams and banning use of personal devices in the exam room is something else that I have heard done but that doesn't help us.
 
I asked ChatGPT tonight, after seeing over 20 registrations within a few hours, from all over the world, and 98% of them validated.

"Can you use AI to create these and pretend they are from various countries convincingly?"

ChatGPT: "Absolutely. AI can generate hundreds or thousands of convincing forum identities in minutes, complete with:
  • Usernames that appear to originate from different countries.
  • Plausible names and email addresses.
  • Different languages, writing styles, and cultural references.
  • Realistic biographies and interests.
  • Forum posts that appear to come from different individuals.
And bots can automate the registration process."

So we're screwed? Our servers will become loaded with useless garbage and there is nolthing we can do? Damn this is depressing. Manually checking the registrations show they look mostly all legit, but weird usernames and email addresses suggest otherwise, and IP Spam checking don't do squat.

If someone found a way to mitigate that disaster, please share...
Maybe the Registration Spaminator would help? I use that - it's a honeypot for bots :-) It has hidden fields that only bots see and when they fill them in they are blocked as bots.

 
Maybe the Registration Spaminator would help? I use that - it's a honeypot for bots :-) It has hidden fields that only bots see and when they fill them in they are blocked as bots.

Looks promising! If the AI does't scan this and create a parade... :)
 
Back
Top Bottom