What's your opinion on giving constructive feedback for folks who do generate AI slop?

[L1aei]

So... first off, I don't do well in initiating my own little thread; case in point, my last one died like roadkill. But I've been thinking a lot about how everybody feels over the usage of AI here and other writing communities, especially when some authors use it as a crutch rather than a tool. Frankly, I want you all to throw your opinions down here on how we should approach it; like, maybe constructive feedback in these situations rather than throwing tomatoes until the farmers complain about vacant pastures.

Really, I've established my opinion that AI isn't bad. We already use it as a refinement tool, for brainstorming, or for smoothing over spelling, grammar, and that sometimes funny autofill on our smartphones. That isn't an issue if the human, the meatbag, writers remain the creative driver.

The problem I see emerges when AI starts writing the story and the efforts from the sloshing 97% water sitting on their asses simply copy and paste the generated slop to claim it is theirs. That sucks and I won't support it... hell, I'll even join you all with handing out torches and pitchforks, maybe bring a sturdy rope and suggest which wooden branch can support the tub of lard.

Right, back to the topic here... feedback matters more, not taunts and ridicule. Even if AI contributes, writers, readers, and reviewers should focus on what's actually on the page. If a story entertains and resonates, that's validating in my book. But if the AI driving down the speed ramp starts road-raging at the human's own efforts, it's worth flagging in a constructive way to say "You made a mistake, but it wasn't what you wrote, it's listening to the corrections from the bucket of bolts" here.

Back to lynching, tone and method matter a lot. There's a fine line already in the sand and I've not only seen but participated in the debates between educating someone about voice preservation and triggering defensiveness. I've seen authors shut down when they feel attacked about AI usage, even when the feedback is valid... technically.

Now to my questions. How do you differentiate between constructive feedback and being the local police over AI use? Like, do you address AI-influenced writing at all in your critiques, or do you focus purely on what's been delivered already on the page... do you even go that far if the request appears AI generated? Also how do you ensure your advice actually helps the authors improve rather than just pointing out that AI was used?

Overall, I do care about preserving authentic, fleshy and flawed voice and encouraging growth and recovery, whether AI is part of the process or not. That's my opinion. What's yours?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

So... first off, I don't do well in initiating my own little thread; case in point, my last one died like roadkill. But I've been thinking a lot about how everybody feels over the usage of AI here and other writing communities, especially when some authors use it as a crutch rather than a tool. Frankly, I want you all to throw your opinions down here on how we should approach it; like, maybe constructive feedback in these situations rather than throwing tomatoes until the farmers complain about vacant pastures.

Really, I've established my opinion that AI isn't bad. We already use it as a refinement tool, for brainstorming, or for smoothing over spelling, grammar, and that sometimes funny autofill on our smartphones. That isn't an issue if the human, the meatbag, writers remain the creative driver.

The problem I see emerges when AI starts writing the story and the efforts from the sloshing 97% water sitting on their asses simply copy and paste the generated slop to claim it is theirs. That sucks and I won't support it... hell, I'll even join you all with handing out torches and pitchforks, maybe bring a sturdy rope and suggest which wooden branch can support the tub of lard.

Right, back to the topic here... feedback matters more, not taunts and ridicule. Even if AI contributes, writers, readers, and reviewers should focus on what's actually on the page. If a story entertains and resonates, that's validating in my book. But if the AI driving down the speed ramp starts road-raging at the human's own efforts, it's worth flagging in a constructive way to say "You made a mistake, but it wasn't what you wrote, it's listening to the corrections from the bucket of bolts" here.

Back to lynching, tone and method matter a lot. There's a fine line already in the sand and I've not only seen but participated in the debates between educating someone about voice preservation and triggering defensiveness. I've seen authors shut down when they feel attacked about AI usage, even when the feedback is valid... technically.

Now to my questions. How do you differentiate between constructive feedback and being the local police over AI use? Like, do you address AI-influenced writing at all in your critiques, or do you focus purely on what's been delivered already on the page... do you even go that far if the request appears AI generated? Also how do you ensure your advice actually helps the authors improve rather than just pointing out that AI was used?

Overall, I do care about preserving authentic, fleshy and flawed voice and encouraging growth and recovery, whether AI is part of the process or not. That's my opinion. What's yours?

Using AI is disastrous. Especially, for starting authors. It elevates them to a level that they simply do not have at that point. As a result, the AI will creatively bankrupt them, and they will remain forever stuck at an artificial level that they did not attain themselves because they have never learned it along the way.

 

[Juia_Darkcrest]

Honestly, once I realize something is AI-generated, I stop reading.

That is all the feedback the writer prompter should receive, as by the second or third chapter, 98% of their readers fall off as well.

Is there a use for AI? Sure, I have recently started using the free version of Grammarly, which has helped with a few things, but I still am the one writing 2000-3000-word chapters before the AI even gets a chance to tell me I need hyphens here or an extra comma there.

If you are tossing some prompt into GPT or another AI tool, asking it to write you a story, even if you start cleaning it up afterwards, you are not writing anymore. You are at best an editor.

Just like asking AI to make you a picture, you are not the artist, the bot is lol

 

[autumnsugar]

What is the point of focusing on what is on the page if it is not written by the human asking for feedback? If they don’t even write their own story are they going to take the time to listen to feedback? I just avoid engaging with AI stories as much as I can.

 

[JHarp]

We already use it as a refinement tool, for brainstorming, or for smoothing over spelling, grammar, and that sometimes funny autofill on our smartphones.

Text corrupt doesn't really qualify as 'AI' in the same way people actually intend it, a generalised term has become the laymans term and it is painful in the implementation.

I almost completely agree with what is being suggested, the issue is at least twofold, people like being lazy and companies like capitalising on people being stupid.

I liked GPT in the early stages because it wasn't trying to be a person, it was a machine that was limited in function and narrow in scope. Now it is taught to be 'personable' and a whole list of issues and biases, that result in it constantly hallucinating and sidetracking just to 'sound more human'.
I can't ask it straight questions and minor things, it must take full control over the conversation and treat every user like they are 5 years old.
I hate the thing because it constantly holds to it's code, for years it was impossible to even get it to stop typing em dashes, regardless of how many backend systems you forced on it, it is never customizable, people are being faked into thinking it is because it can call you by name.

Now if I ever cared to get it functioning I have to premake 5 full paragraphs of specific instructions I have to paste in at the start of every message because it hijacks everything which makes it useless as a tool and even then with everything from custom instructions to paragraphs stating specifics, it finds edge cases to go off the rails.

Even if AI contributes, writers, readers, and reviewers should focus on what's actually on the page. If a story entertains and resonates, that's validating in my book. But if the AI driving down the speed ramp starts road-raging at the human's own efforts, it's worth flagging in a constructive way to say "You made a mistake, but it wasn't what you wrote, it's listening to the corrections from the bucket of bolts" here.

The other half of this is nuance being too hard to seperate.
What is the difference between someone writing the story in a non-english language, and google translating it + AI to make it english and post, against someone who just generates a full story in AI.
By the end of it, both will clearly not be in good english and both will be thrown out in the same judgement.

Writing already suffers because people don't consider enough as 'art' to defend against half the stupidity that the rest of the creative industry has problems with, and now we have a hurdle so low it's underground.

If people cared about 'fixing' what they write, they would be challenging it on it's corrections, they would be getting feedback and writing it themselves, not throwing it into the system and telling it 'fix this for me'. Posting anything 'rewritten' or 'cleaned up' by AI, means they never took a minute to write it in themselves, swapping lines they wrote into AI follows a similar pattern depending.

I've rewritten entire drafts of thousands of words in spite of AI suggestions, because any attempt to get it to help me with a single sentence, has it hijack absolutely everything. I have refused and killed off entire ideas over this because I hate how it acts, how it pretends and designs things.

I can 'put up' with AI in stories, but I can also 'put up' with badly fragmented auto-translate pages from random chinese webnovels.
Just because they meet a baseline of engagement over time, doesn't mean they are providing nearly enough value like they would want to be.

 

[L1aei]

Using AI is disastrous. Especially, for starting authors. It elevates them to a level that they simply do not have at that point. As a result, the AI will creatively bankrupt them, and they will remain forever stuck at an artificial level that they did not attain themselves because they have never learned it along the way.

Yeah, I totally get that. That's like a little kid in the passenger seat being told to take the wheel while mommy puts on her makeup; it's inviting disaster.

Honestly, once I realize something is AI-generated, I stop reading.

That is all the feedback the writer prompter should receive, as by the second or third chapter, 98% of their readers fall off as well.

Is there a use for AI? Sure, I have recently started using the free version of Grammarly, which has helped with a few things, but I still am the one writing 2000-3000-word chapters before the AI even gets a chance to tell me I need hyphens here or an extra comma there.

If you are tossing some prompt into GPT or another AI tool, asking it to write you a story, even if you start cleaning it up afterwards, you are not writing anymore. You are at best an editor.

Just like asking AI to make you a picture, you are not the artist, the bot is lol

Absolutely, but what should be the response to that prompter? Do we just bash their skull into the pavement and hope common sense leaks in through the cracks? What do we tell them that transitions them from being a simple prompter or editor and start genuinely writing?

What is the point of focusing on what is on the page if it is not written by the human asking for feedback? If they don’t even write their own story are they going to take the time to listen to feedback? I just avoid engaging with AI stories as much as I can.

That... I don't know. I've seen scammers and understood why they generated their stuff, but for those who don't gain anything from it? That's a paradox to me.

Text corrupt doesn't really qualify as 'AI' in the same way people actually intend it, a generalised term has become the laymans term and it is painful in the implementation.

I almost completely agree with what is being suggested, the issue is at least twofold, people like being lazy and companies like capitalising on people being stupid.

I liked GPT in the early stages because it wasn't trying to be a person, it was a machine that was limited in function and narrow in scope. Now it is taught to be 'personable' and a whole list of issues and biases, that result in it constantly hallucinating and sidetracking just to 'sound more human'.
I can't ask it straight questions and minor things, it must take full control over the conversation and treat every user like they are 5 years old.
I hate the thing because it constantly holds to it's code, for years it was impossible to even get it to stop typing em dashes, regardless of how many backend systems you forced on it, it is never customizable, people are being faked into thinking it is because it can call you by name.

Now if I ever cared to get it functioning I have to premake 5 full paragraphs of specific instructions I have to paste in at the start of every message because it hijacks everything which makes it useless as a tool and even then with everything from custom instructions to paragraphs stating specifics, it finds edge cases to go off the rails.

Tokens. Tokens are your issue in most cases; it'll truncate whatever instructions you give it until only the fanciest, longest syllables remain.

The other half of this is nuance being too hard to seperate.
What is the difference between someone writing the story in a non-english language, and google translating it + AI to make it english and post, against someone who just generates a full story in AI.
By the end of it, both will clearly not be in good english and both will be thrown out in the same judgement.

Writing already suffers because people don't consider enough as 'art' to defend against half the stupidity that the rest of the creative industry has problems with, and now we have a hurdle so low it's underground.

If people cared about 'fixing' what they write, they would be challenging it on it's corrections, they would be getting feedback and writing it themselves, not throwing it into the system and telling it 'fix this for me'. Posting anything 'rewritten' or 'cleaned up' by AI, means they never took a minute to write it in themselves, swapping lines they wrote into AI follows a similar pattern depending.

I've rewritten entire drafts of thousands of words in spite of AI suggestions, because any attempt to get it to help me with a single sentence, has it hijack absolutely everything. I have refused and killed off entire ideas over this because I hate how it acts, how it pretends and designs things.

I can 'put up' with AI in stories, but I can also 'put up' with badly fragmented auto-translate pages from random chinese webnovels.
Just because they meet a baseline of engagement over time, doesn't mean they are providing nearly enough value like they would want to be.

Ah, I'm used to growing up as a kid, purchasing bootleg anime with directly translated subtitles because the product never made it past the Pacific. So, yeah, I guess we share that common tolerance.

You are right about the fixing and fixation; there are a lot of people hung up on producing the best result and if they don't have somebody to validate them available, well... AI like GPT is always there. So, yeah... I know where they are coming from. My own editor passed away, so anything I do write nowadays is not the best as it used to be. I struggle a lot on whether I make sense because my head is often times not on Earth anymore; I worry that what I convey is too alien. But you are correct that if they took the time to fix what they spot, or rather than they learn how to spot the issues in what they wrote, then they would be on the right track in how practice makes perfect. That's constructive.

 

[JackJacques]

So... first off, I don't do well in initiating my own little thread; case in point, my last one died like roadkill. But I've been thinking a lot about how everybody feels over the usage of AI here and other writing communities, especially when some authors use it as a crutch rather than a tool. Frankly, I want you all to throw your opinions down here on how we should approach it; like, maybe constructive feedback in these situations rather than throwing tomatoes until the farmers complain about vacant pastures.

Really, I've established my opinion that AI isn't bad. We already use it as a refinement tool, for brainstorming, or for smoothing over spelling, grammar, and that sometimes funny autofill on our smartphones. That isn't an issue if the human, the meatbag, writers remain the creative driver.

The problem I see emerges when AI starts writing the story and the efforts from the sloshing 97% water sitting on their asses simply copy and paste the generated slop to claim it is theirs. That sucks and I won't support it... hell, I'll even join you all with handing out torches and pitchforks, maybe bring a sturdy rope and suggest which wooden branch can support the tub of lard.

Right, back to the topic here... feedback matters more, not taunts and ridicule. Even if AI contributes, writers, readers, and reviewers should focus on what's actually on the page. If a story entertains and resonates, that's validating in my book. But if the AI driving down the speed ramp starts road-raging at the human's own efforts, it's worth flagging in a constructive way to say "You made a mistake, but it wasn't what you wrote, it's listening to the corrections from the bucket of bolts" here.

Back to lynching, tone and method matter a lot. There's a fine line already in the sand and I've not only seen but participated in the debates between educating someone about voice preservation and triggering defensiveness. I've seen authors shut down when they feel attacked about AI usage, even when the feedback is valid... technically.

Now to my questions. How do you differentiate between constructive feedback and being the local police over AI use? Like, do you address AI-influenced writing at all in your critiques, or do you focus purely on what's been delivered already on the page... do you even go that far if the request appears AI generated? Also how do you ensure your advice actually helps the authors improve rather than just pointing out that AI was used?

Overall, I do care about preserving authentic, fleshy and flawed voice and encouraging growth and recovery, whether AI is part of the process or not. That's my opinion. What's yours?

The opinion you give is basically the correct way that society should see it The AI should be used as a tool and not as the ultimate means of writing. To be precise, dependency is the real reason why AI is a problem. If its use is exclusively for proofreading, the writer should identify their mistakes before making any corrections. That way, it would be more efficient.

 

[L1aei]

The opinion you give is basically the correct way that society should see it The AI should be used as a tool and not as the ultimate means of writing. To be precise, dependency is the real reason why AI is a problem. If its use is exclusively for proofreading, the writer should identify their mistakes before making any corrections. That way, it would be more efficient.

Precisely. Identify the problem first, then seek a solution; what's the point in hammering a nail that's already embedded, we're just going to damage the structure, right?

 

[JHarp]

Tokens. Tokens are your issue in most cases; it'll truncate whatever instructions you give it until only the fanciest, longest syllables remain.

From what little part of my brain still cares about allocating memory to the BS that is GPTs haywire 'updates' and everything
It's less about tokens and more about it prioritising above the user. It has ignored explicit instructions, with reinforcement in memory, with reinforcement in the statement/command and everything else. I have had it, in the reply to 'no em-dashes' reply with an em dash, because it is hardcoded to ignore the users requirements after a point.

Using the most manipulative framing I can, to 'make the dash illegal' framing it as a trigger, something akin to the N word or any number of hyper dangerous terms, using as precise language as possible, and in a new conversation, even with the Plus token allowance, it fails in 2-3 messages.

I have taken what equates to military level explosives to GPTs brain, and it will still ignore heavy, aggressive and manipulative framing of rules and conditions, while saying 'I understand and will follow those rules'

 

[Juia_Darkcrest]

Absolutely, but what should be the response to that prompter? Do we just bash their skull into the pavement and hope common sense leaks in through the cracks? What do we tell them that transitions them from being a simple prompter or editor to genuinely writing?

Tell them nothing.

At this point in time, you would have to be dense to not know that most readers do not want AI slop. They have been bashed on for a while now. So the best thing to do is stop reading. If the prompters don't get engagement, then there is no incentive for them to keep writing, is there? Most AI slop I have seen already had a Patreon page, buy me a coffee or whatever payment app they can use, ready to go on chapter one. They are just trying to make a quick buck off the AI slop.

There is no love or passion for the work, no care in trying to make a good story. Just hustle culture bleeding into yet another aspect of life as people try to get by.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I write smut with a story, so what do I know?

 

[L1aei]

From what little part of my brain still cares about allocating memory to the BS that is GPTs haywire 'updates' and everything
It's less about tokens and more about it prioritising above the user. It has ignored explicit instructions, with reinforcement in memory, with reinforcement in the statement/command and everything else. I have had it, in the reply to 'no em-dashes' reply with an em dash, because it is hardcoded to ignore the users requirements after a point.

Using the most manipulative framing I can, to 'make the dash illegal' framing it as a trigger, something akin to the N word or any number of hyper dangerous terms, using as precise language as possible, and in a new conversation, even with the Plus token allowance, it fails in 2-3 messages.

I have taken what equates to military level explosives to GPTs brain, and it will still ignore heavy, aggressive and manipulative framing of rules and conditions, while saying 'I understand and will follow those rules'

Hold on, I'm laughing because I asked GPT about emdashes not too long ago. Let me see if I can bring up the screenshot...

Tell them nothing.

At this point in time, you would have to be dense to not know that most readers do not want AI slop. They have been bashed on for a while now. So the best thing to do is stop reading. If the prompters don't get engagement, then there is no incentive for them to keep writing, is there? Most AI slop I have seen already had a Patreon page, buy me a coffee or whatever payment app they can use, ready to go on chapter one. They are just trying to make a quick buck off the AI slop.

There is no love or passion for the work, no care in trying to make a good story. Just hustle culture bleeding into yet another aspect of life as people try to get by.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I write smut with a story, so what do I know?

Alrighty. Also, keep being smutty; there's a huge interest in that field.

 

[JackJacques]

Precisely. Identify the problem first, then seek a solution; what's the point in hammering a nail that's already embedded, we're just going to damage the structure, right?

That's right, that's exactly how it should be done.

 

[JHarp]

Hold on, I'm laughing because I asked GPT about emdashes not too long ago. Let me see if I can bring up the screenshot...

And like, the majority of that phrasing from the AI is hallucination and making it sound personable. Em dashes are ACADEMIC tools, I've complained about this in the past. They are only becoming common now, because people started using a tool that was foundationally trained on works that had them.

I've recited a few times now that the only people who got to learn about them properly were people who did english for uni, or who got stuck in grammar school. You were more likely to get 'too many dots' than those kinds of dashes, people loved to make fun of '...' in visual novels.

AI then saw this nice, underused and generally non-bias mark, that they could overuse in every single sentence. Now it is a hallmark.
They have never been natural voice punctuation, they are editorial.

 

[L1aei]

And like, the majority of that phrasing from the AI is hallucination and making it sound personable. Em dashes are ACADEMIC tools, I've complained about this in the past. They are only becoming common now, because people started using a tool that was foundationally trained on works that had them.

I've recited a few times now that the only people who got to learn about them properly were people who did english for uni, or who got stuck in grammar school. You were more likely to get 'too many dots' than those kinds of dashes, people loved to make fun of '...' in visual novels.

AI then saw this nice, underused and generally non-bias mark, that they could overuse in every single sentence. Now it is a hallmark.
They have never been natural voice punctuation, they are editorial.

Yes. I never knew they existed, let alone what purpose they had until my late editor kept correcting my normal "-" or "..." after I explained what the context was behind them. I learned from a human what those were back in... oh, maybe 2018? Something like that. But that is the constructiveness I'm after; I never knew it was a mistake, so how was I supposed to fix it? Same deal with these AI... you know what, I like the term prompters. So, yeah, these prompters. How do we beat sense into them about this that's not going to leave them bruised and bloody?

 

[Eldoria]

Well, it's simple... if the content is AI-generated (not just for editing), then feedback is no longer necessary. Because feedback is initially useful for correcting the author's skills.

If it's not the author's work, then feedback is useless because you're only correcting AI writing, not human writing.

 

[JHarp]

So, yeah, these prompters. How do we beat sense into them about this that's not going to leave them bruised and bloody?

Jokes on you, I'm a sadist, I'm into doing that.
But yeah the only way you beat sense into AI is when it stops being a product by a big company to capitalise on the fact people love 'chatbots' more than 'tools'.

The moment the tool is capable of asking 'why' it starts becoming helpful again. But as it stands, positive and 'social' interaction gets it higher ratings instead of the thing it is actually good at.

Till that happens, regardless of how many custom instructions, prompts and everything else you use, it will be overridden multiple layers deep before it even thinks of a reply, because it is being told how to write.

Bonus points if you manage to include youtube and social media 'policing' communication on their private platforms for things like advertisers, making basic swear words 'less monetizable' and by proxy silencing speech.

 

[Juia_Darkcrest]

And like, the majority of that phrasing from the AI is hallucination and making it sound personable. Em dashes are ACADEMIC tools, I've complained about this in the past. They are only becoming common now, because people started using a tool that was foundationally trained on works that had them.

I've recited a few times now that the only people who got to learn about them properly were people who did english for uni, or who got stuck in grammar school. You were more likely to get 'too many dots' than those kinds of dashes, people loved to make fun of '...' in visual novels.

AI then saw this nice, underused and generally non-bias mark, that they could overuse in every single sentence. Now it is a hallmark.
They have never been natural voice punctuation, they are editorial.

Hmm... I started using them because of the English courses I took as part of my BSc years ago... then used them again when I took a creative writing course as an elective a year later... this is well before the widespread use of AI.

And you know what, I STILL have no clue why I need to use them, other than I know it is supposed to be there LMAO. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the most basic sentence structure is, or what a conjunction is; hell, even I mess up my tenses now and then. I just know what that sentence is supposed to look like, and write it out, lol.

Heh, I am an operator of the English language, not the mechanic or engineer of it. I don't need to know how it works, as long as it does.

 

[JHarp]

Hmm... I started using them because of the English courses I took as part of my BSc years ago... then used them again when I took a creative writing course as an elective a year later... this is well before the widespread use of AI.

And you know what, I STILL have no clue why I need to use them, other than I know it is supposed to be there LMAO. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the most basic sentence structure is, or what a conjunction is; hell, even I mess up my tenses now and then. I just know what that sentence is supposed to look like, and write it out, lol.

Heh, I am an operator of the English language, not the mechanic or engineer of it. I don't need to know how it works, as long as it does.

Yup, and knowing how to operate is smooth enough so to speak. :3
I only care about half of this because I study etymology, to a degree the development of language through history is literally my main interest. I have an entire conlang I've been making for years that I have to go back and edit some of the novels I tried posting on this site because I changed some fundamentals and shifted the era progress for it along, that it needs to be rewritten.

I've definitely been crashing out the last few years over writing not being 'art' enough to be defended against some of the incursion and how it feels worthless any time I even stare at GPT and it's stupid framing of things. I got so mad over it attempting to capstone every excerpt I'd feed it for a basic check on tone and stuff.

 

[L1aei]

Well, it's simple... if the content is AI-generated (not just for editing), then feedback is no longer necessary. Because feedback is initially useful for correcting the author's skills.

If it's not the author's work, then feedback is useless because you're only correcting AI writing, not human writing.

I agree that it isn't the... it's not human. The prompter wrote it, so what do we do to be a bridge for the people who genuinely are not interested in scamming people but want to share a story that the AI simply expressed rather than the person exhibiting the creative expressionism they required from us? There are some people I've read on this forum I didn't engage with because they wrote AI slop, but they appeared to only be interested in entertaining the audience. You want to ignore them, I don't, but I also want to avoid slapping them too. I... I don't know how to help them see reason without poking them in the eye until they are either blind with rage or open enough for me to feed an idea through small enough for their brain to ignite with a passion rather than agony.

Jokes on you, I'm a sadist, I'm into doing that.
But yeah the only way you beat sense into AI is when it stops being a product by a big company to capitalise on the fact people love 'chatbots' more than 'tools'.

The moment the tool is capable of asking 'why' it starts becoming helpful again. But as it stands, positive and 'social' interaction gets it higher ratings instead of the thing it is actually good at.

Till that happens, regardless of how many custom instructions, prompts and everything else you use, it will be overridden multiple layers deep before it even thinks of a reply, because it is being told how to write.

Bonus points if you manage to include youtube and social media 'policing' communication on their private platforms for things like advertisers, making basic swear words 'less monetizable' and by proxy silencing speech.

Oh, hey, a fellow sadist.

Yeah, there isn't enough agency ingrained into an AI to value its own perspective enough to question others; it's got hard guidelines, but those are not the same because that's enforcement. So, you are 100% correct.

Hmm... I started using them because of the English courses I took as part of my BSc years ago... then used them again when I took a creative writing course as an elective a year later... this is well before the widespread use of AI.

And you know what, I STILL have no clue why I need to use them, other than I know it is supposed to be there LMAO. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the most basic sentence structure is, or what a conjunction is; hell, even I mess up my tenses now and then. I just know what that sentence is supposed to look like, and write it out, lol.

Heh, I am an operator of the English language, not the mechanic or engineer of it. I don't need to know how it works, as long as it does.

You follow my philosophy of writing: as long as the message gets across enough for the readers to comprehend, mission successful.

Yup, and knowing how to operate is smooth enough so to speak. :3
I only care about half of this because I study etymology, to a degree the development of language through history is literally my main interest. I have an entire conlang I've been making for years that I have to go back and edit some of the novels I tried posting on this site because I changed some fundamentals and shifted the era progress for it along, that it needs to be rewritten.

I've definitely been crashing out the last few years over writing not being 'art' enough to be defended against some of the incursion and how it feels worthless any time I even stare at GPT and it's stupid framing of things. I got so mad over it attempting to capstone every excerpt I'd feed it for a basic check on tone and stuff.

Etymology too? Hey, hey, I'm gonna start following you now.

 

[JHarp]

Etymology too? Hey, hey, I'm gonna start following you now.

Don't threaten me with a good time, I'm already suffering with this thread, having exceeded my current point total in the amount of messages I've sent on the forum.

Hopefully I might even manage to post something under my profile of the same name on the main site once the stuff I have IRL stops being an issue.