Why any GPT / AI hype rule is non enforceable.
Lorentzos Roussos:
Here are some points concerning the subject.
Thank you for your good work
Your arguments are very clear and well-meaning.
According to the ways you suggested to confirm EA using AI, Neural Network, deep learning is a suitable idea.
In some cases it is difficult to make a fair decision, because the source code is written in different ways depending on the creativity of the developer.
It is also difficult to judge the source code fairly.
Therefore, in the event that the mql cannot be determined, an additional warning can be given in the description of the product so that the user is self-aware and responsible to learn before making a decision to buy the product.
I don't sell or buy anything on the market. But I would support a complete ban on the mention of artificial intelligence in market products.
Even if you really use artificial intelligence in your adviser. What does it change? What's the difference?
The main thing is the trading result. And it doesn't matter what technologies were used.
"Buy our pizza because our chef is a bodybuilder and sings well" - What's the difference, because the pizza is still not tasty
P.S. Personally, I am very sorry that a promising technology has turned into a tool for scammers and clickbait.
This is a very interesting topic, but if products with mentions to AI/GPT/etc. shall be banned when used for marketing purposes, then other "hot" topics could, like it was before with crypto or some tech stocks.
If the product really does use chat GPT, I don't see why it should be banned. Other topic is if it is useful or not (and I would think it is as useful as reading wallstreetbets, which is very probably in its training dataset too) and if whoever buys it thinks it is useful or trusts what it says. But this can also be said about martingales for example, and there is a whole section on that.
About rule 6, I don't think those products necessarily break that rule because it's about collecting the data, you can allow specific urls and know if the EA is communicating with gpt api in this case (or at least know it's not communicating with other urls), and the author wouldn't keep the data (maybe I'm wrong here, I haven't used the API).
Lastly, about the neural network EAs, with all the new tools added to mql5, metaquotes could add confirmations in the EA itself to verify that an EA is using a neural network (just a window telling "this EA is using a NN with this many layers and neurons", for instance), but that would have to be built in the language itself. Personally I wouldn't still trust too much EAs that use neural networks, because they can't be backtested reliably (if they were trained with future data, relative to when you start the backtest).
Therefore, in the event that the mql cannot be determined, an additional warning can be given in the description of the product so that the user is self-aware and responsible to learn before making a decision to buy the product.
If they decide to not enforce it that is a good alternative
I don't sell or buy anything on the market. But I would support a complete ban on the mention of artificial intelligence in market products.
Even if you really use artificial intelligence in your adviser. What does it change? What's the difference?
The main thing is the trading result. And it doesn't matter what technologies were used.
"Buy our pizza because our chef is a bodybuilder and sings well" - What's the difference, because the pizza is still not tasty
P.S. Personally, I am very sorry that a promising technology has turned into a tool for scammers and clickbait.
Well if you are experienced in in these fields you use them for the end goal . Same as someone who has the skill of manually adjusting a strategy .
The thing is there is no way to know this tech is really used . So for someone who has a neural net in their EA , if mq does not ban the terms other EAs without the tech ride the wave , if mq bans the terms then his only gain will be if the ea performs well .
This is a very interesting topic, but if products with mentions to AI/GPT/etc. shall be banned when used for marketing purposes, then other "hot" topics could, like it was before with crypto or some tech stocks.
If the product really does use chat GPT, I don't see why it should be banned. Other topic is if it is useful or not (and I would think it is as useful as reading wallstreetbets, which is very probably in its training dataset too) and if whoever buys it thinks it is useful or trusts what it says. But this can also be said about martingales for example, and there is a whole section on that.
About rule 6, I don't think those products necessarily break that rule because it's about collecting the data, you can allow specific urls and know if the EA is communicating with gpt api in this case (or at least know it's not communicating with other urls), and the author wouldn't keep the data (maybe I'm wrong here, I haven't used the API).
Lastly, about the neural network EAs, with all the new tools added to mql5, metaquotes could add confirmations in the EA itself to verify that an EA is using a neural network (just a window telling "this EA is using a NN with this many layers and neurons", for instance), but that would have to be built in the language itself. Personally I wouldn't still trust too much EAs that use neural networks, because they can't be backtested reliably (if they were trained with future data, relative to when you start the backtest).
Because there is no way of checking if a product uses chatGPT
Yeah if the buyers trust the vendor it probably says something about the vendor . Unless they (the vendor) use the "reviews" and "comment" mechanisms to verify purchases to hand out freebies in private telegram groups . (or to hand out configurations in private telegram groups - which is also a violation)
You don't know what happens in the server the EA communicates with , usually it wont communicate directly with openAI's server because there will be no way for the vendor to load balance the requests (they must load balance them because they are paying for them). So it would have to be routed via their own server (the vendor's server) where Mq has no way of knowing what is going on.Furtthermore without looking at the source code you don't know if whatever the server is sending is at the wheel of the trading decisions (unless its coplimentary)
Metaquotes cannot know if a neural network exists in an ea , and , if an onnx model is used -that the user must load- then they can't know if that model is driving the trading in the ea.(not to mention if they openly share the onnx model they have given away the 90% of the ea if it is really producing the signals)
if mq bans the terms then his only gain will be if the ea performs well
That is, the ban will not affect the profitability of advisors, but simply prohibit stupid marketing that borders on fraud.
If you are selling a very profitable EA using artificial intelligence, then after the ban you are still selling a very profitable EA using artificial intelligence. Yes, you can't talk about artificial intelligence under the hood. But will it somehow affect your EA? Your EA is still very profitable. But a large number of people will not fall victim to scammers
The buyer wants a trading result. If an EA lives up to expectations, then the technologies used in it do not matter. If you took a loss, would you be less upset that super cool technology was used to make it happen?
I believe that only the trading result matters. And it doesn't really matter what technology was used.
That is, the ban will not affect the profitability of advisors, but simply prohibit stupid marketing that borders on fraud.
If you are selling a very profitable EA using artificial intelligence, then after the ban you are still selling a very profitable EA using artificial intelligence. Yes, you can't talk about artificial intelligence under the hood. But will it somehow affect your EA? Your EA is still very profitable. But a large number of people will not fall victim to scammers
The buyer wants a trading result. If an EA lives up to expectations, then the technologies used in it do not matter. If you took a loss, would you be less upset that super cool technology was used to make it happen?
I believe that only the trading result matters. And it doesn't really matter what technology was used.
ehehehe nice one.
Yeah i meant from the perspective of "traffic" that was not clear sorry . So if the ea is good that will be it's main driver . Right now if the ea is good and actually has a neural net or ML in it has a dual benefit as it's in the "wind" of the AI search terms too.
This is an additional dilemma for the matter : Google traffic .
If the hype terms are banned this flow of traffic to the site will stop.
But if the hype terms are not banned you have other problems : the flow reaching junk products and damaging the image of the market.
The most "common" way to detect history readers is to create a custom symbol which has the price action of an existing symbol but the name of another one.
This way if there's baddie code with instructions on when to but or sell in the ea it actually executes the instructions for a symbol but encounters the price action
of another .That may expose the "reading" activity but you may also wrongly accuse someone who has a MachineLearning model inside the EA which needs to know (usually) the symbol it is
running on so that it can utilize the proper configuration.
So for instance you'd create EURUSDtest with the price action of USDCAD or something.
But then we run into a problem .
The competitors of the vendor that uses ML will rush to accuse him/her , and , the scammers will claim there's an ML model in the EA and it "get confuse" with the change of the symbol price action.
Well we can use another method to smoke "readers" out and keep the ML products in our list of products we'd purchase.
Why would an ML model work though ? Because it "would have been trained" on that symbols price action so by shifting the time you are not hurting it , because it loads EURUSD as the symbol and loads the EURUSD model.
Why can't we test an ML EA with the symbol change ? Because if you load a EURUSD configuration and it encounters USDCAD price action of course it may fail.
There is some further discussion to be made however on how an ML EA should be tested and what the vendor would place in the instructions (and the inputs).(because you may be testing on data the network has seen already , it sounds weird because it looks like it contradicts the whole substitution of data but trust me it is logical).
If you find any mistakes let me know :
-A solar cycle is 28 years .
-If we shift the date 28 years back or 28 years ahead or step 28 years back and forth from today we will end up on the exact same day . For instance it will be monday morning seventh of august
The datetime structure goes from 1 January, 1970 to 31 December, 3000
Unfortunately that gives us one leap backwards only (unless you are reading this on 2026)
The tester cannot accomodate future dates unfortunately.
How :
- Compile the attached code in the expert advisors folder.
- Make sure the symbol you want to test is selected in the market watch.
- Open a chart and enter the symbol you want to test , the broker prefix and the broker suffix if any.
- Click okay.
- The new symbol will appear in the market watch.
- Note the dates reported by the exporter in the experts tab.
- Open the tester , 1 minute ohlc , select the new symbol
- select the date range the exporter reported (First valid time and Last valid time)
- Test .
- If you want to test the same range on the original symbol use the range dates the exporter printed (First ORIGINAL and Last ORIGINAL)
If theres anything weird going on you will see a massive difference between the original symbol and the shifted symbol.
very interesting discussion.
As a past buyer of products on MQ MarketPlace, my opinion is that the use of AI as a marketing tool should be banned, as in previous comments have mentioned that it is almost fraud; I suggest that "almost" is not right. The use of AI in marketing is misleading, which in many countries is part of the definition of fraud, therefore to mislead customers is 100% fraud perpetrated by these sellers that mention AI in their product descriptions.
I don't sell or buy anything on the market. But I would support a complete ban on the mention of artificial intelligence in market products.
Even if you really use artificial intelligence in your adviser. What does it change? What's the difference?
The main thing is the trading result. And it doesn't matter what technologies were used.
"Buy our pizza because our chef is a bodybuilder and sings well" - What's the difference, because the pizza is still not tasty
P.S. Personally, I am very sorry that a promising technology has turned into a tool for scammers and clickbait.
And like this metaphor, saying goes, an ea is an ea, if you use AI in the coding, OR NOT, if the product is being sold, then, it must work. To use fraudulent descriptions only encourages clickbaiting and diminishes the reputation of not just the seller and the product, but the reputation of the whole mq website and brand.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
There was a thread that spurred discussion of this topic recently .
Here are some points concerning the subject .
What was in the thread ?
The OP (poster) had some of his products hidden because someone complained or he spammed them and there seems to be an anti spam bot that sends your product to be checked on the desk if you spam it . Pretty clever mechanism i like it , bravo mql5.com , step in the right direction there.
At the start of the thread the op claimed the ban was for gpt in the titles (and description and logos) so a moderator replied with a reference to a post by the Metaquotes moderator account from the Russian forum that said this :
So there's hype mentioned there , meaning -probably- that the product was flagged for something and the check also caught the artificial intelligence + gpt terms in the descriptions .
Here is the original link https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/451234/page2#comment_48339526
So the administration seems to not want AI/ML/GPT/NN to be used as "hype" to improve the perceived performance of a product .
(where is the artificial intelligence hype mentioned ? later on that thread the desk informs the op he used "artificial intelligence" in his description)
here is the link : https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/451234/page3#comment_48343897
But these cannot be arbitrarily enforced .
Here is why :
Let's start with Neural networks.
Unless they looked at the source code.
Let's go to chatGPT / GPT / LLM
So there is no basis for hiding Mark's or my EA in that case either .
Again its non-enforceable or it must be blanket enforced.
Again , they must hide none of the 2 EAs or both of the EAs.
There is one blind spot which i cannot check because of the pc being weak here .
If Mark compiles a model within the EA (meaning opening up a source file of minimum 920MB or 14GB in size which my pc can't do here) and if that can be compiled , i can't check what the size of the ex4/ex5 will be .
But still even if that was evident by the bloated ex4/ex5 (if it did not go over the upload file size limit!) there would not be a way to know the model is wired in the trading decisions without looking at the source code.
So for all cases the rule cannot be applied arbitrarily even if it is because the spam bot caught a product (for other reasons) and when it was checked it was found to be in violation of the hype rule .
So , it must be applied to ALL products that use this lingo , or , NO products at all . That is what my protest is about .
Yes they may not be checking all products but the rule cannot be applied arbitrarily if a product happens to be checked .
They own their database they can comb through it with scripts and automatically hide violations . If they really wanted to go after hype.
"But they say they don't check products anyway..." yeah , but due to this rule being impossible to check ,because from the moment one of the search terms appears on a product its 50/50 if its true of not , it must be blanket applied universally + instantly OR not applied at all.
That is why the current approach is not viable and unfair .
If mql5.com wanted to be fair they would have to :
So based on the above , if mq wants to enforce it, these products are in violation of the hype rule :
Some have been flagged already but manual checks are meaningless -and a mockery to all of the vendors-
Needless to say that if a product is "checked" by the desk manually for whether or not it communicates with chat GPT , meaning the EA must contact a url to receive trading instructions, it is in violation of the market rule 6 as this is an additional limitation . So they pass the check for gpt and ingore rule6 in that case....
Sorry for the long post.