Is using AI is wrong?

[lambenttyto]

Oh boy, clearly you just feel like denigrating others because you feel uncomfortable about the tool and classify it as cheating.

I use AI to make covers all the time. I don't consider the covers to be true works of art as produced by me. I do prompt and fashion the art as best I can to convey the prose within the story. But even though I can finagle the images to sort of get what I want, which conveys what's in the story, they're not really works of art as I imagine them. They're generated by a machine.

I've worked on my world and novel for 17 years... I doubt you can say as much.

I don't know why you're getting uptight. I commend you for having that dedication to a single story. And while I do that, I'll have you know I can write, and have written, 17 stories in one year. I have at one time written a five-hundred page novel in a month and a half. So while you live in a world of endless rewriting and slow-growing fungus, I'm living in dozens (and in the next 17 years perhaps hundreds) of worlds where I'm not constantly second guessing myself. I don't tinker in prose, I write them and tell stories.

I am not a communist, and do not consider a hand-knit sweater somehow intrinsically more valuable than a machine-made sweater if they are identical. Marxist labor value is a failed concept, repeatedly and horrifically failed.

Indeed.

I think where a lot of confusion lies is in what the author wants to convey. If the "story" is the only thing that matters, one can produce story using AI generated text and good prompts with a bit of editing. Good or bad in quality is up to the reader, but at the end of the road, the story has been produced, and if that's the author's intent, I guess that's the goal achieved.

If my intent is to set up a gallery of photography, I don't want to take the photos. I will collate photographs from various artists that I like. It may convey that I have good taste, but I can't call myself the photographer or an artist. A curator, for certain.

I think if one is to call their writing "art" then they must take care and pride in the authorial voice they infuse into the prose. This in my opinion is the one thing that makes writing prose an "artform." Choosing prompts is curating story elements, its NOT the production of prose infused with your unique artistic imprint.

Perhaps it's all just semantics. What is art? What is not? If it gives you fulfillment, gives the people reading it fulfillment, then I guess everyone is happy, lol.

 

[Shorgoth]

I think if one is to call their writing "art" then they must take care and pride in the authorial voice they infuse into the prose. This in my opinion is the one thing that makes writing prose an "artform." Choosing prompts is curating story elements, its NOT the production of prose infused with your unique artistic imprint.

Perhaps it's all just semantics. What is art? What is not? If it gives you fulfillment, gives the people reading it fulfillment, then I guess everyone is happy, lol.

It's not just"semantic", it's your denigration of others based on arbitrary qualities you are not in any position to judge accurately. There is a word for that: snobism. Art is much larger than what you perceive it to be. I was classically trained with art history classes and all that stuff. Art is not a result; it's an intellectual process.

You might produce a lot, but it doesn't make it art if the process is not there. I'm not placed to judge your own process; I'm not you, I don't know what is going on in it. I can warn you about one thing: it's not just AI that can produce slop; there is such a thing as industrial production, and it's not art either. If all you make is a copy of a copy, it's not your emotions on the pages; it's paint-by-number, and there is plenty of that around. I do not know if it's your case... only you can answer that, the same way I'm the only one who can judge if what I'm making represents my emotions.

I'm not on a constant rewrite loop, by the way. I was just looking for a long time for a completely new narrative style, my own voice as a writer to give justice to my work; it took a long while to find that after numerous attempts, but I'm finally on the final production phase now.

I am not uptight, I'm fucking tired of people denigrating my work without EVER seeing it based on the arbitrary idea that AI is only usable for thoughtless slop. You might be pissed off as well if someone saw your volume and went: Well, that's slop by default.

 

[lambenttyto]

It's not just"semantic", it's your denigration of others based on arbitrary qualities you are not in any position to judge accurately. There is a word for that: snobism. Art is much larger than what you perceive it to be. I was classically trained with art history classes and all that stuff. Art is not a result; it's an intellectual process.

Did I upset you in some other thread? I thought I was being rather mild today.

I never said art was the result of something. AI image generation can produce pretty nice results. That's not really the basis of what I'm saying. Also, everything I've said is based on my own feelings and opinions.

I thought I was being pretty generous here:

What is art? What is not? If it gives you fulfillment, gives the people reading it fulfillment, then I guess everyone is happy, lol.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Don't disrupt this, Enkiari.

 

[Shorgoth]

Did I upset you in some other thread? I thought I was being rather mild today.

I never said art was the result of something. AI image generation can produce pretty nice results. That's not really the basis of what I'm saying. Also, everything I've said is based on my own feelings and opinions.

I thought I was being pretty generous here:

It's the dismissive attitude. Look at how you act from an outside perspective for a second: you insult other people's work, attack them, and then use a throwaway line and call yourself "generous". You call my world basically mouldy without ever even wondering what it is.

What you demonstrated nonstop is arrogance. Now, it might not be your intent, but as someone who also studied psychology, I see the signs of someone who doesn't reflect or understand much about how they affect others with their words and beliefs. It might be simply being socially awkward and a lack of forethought about the subject; if you tell me this is all it is, I'll accept it. Text is easily misconstrued.

You didn't upset me in other threads, and it's not just about you; it's a prevalent attitude to think that just because something was made with AI that it's soulless by default, that there is no actual work involved, planning, symbolism, character studies, and hours of iterations to reach a certain aesthetic. Truthfully, this attitude is more often than not the actions of people who feel easily replaced by AI because their work is, well, really generic. I do not know if it is your case...

If it is your case ( again, not for me to judge I haven't seen your work, it might be perfectly good), I can tell you that AI is completely unable to copy my style completely as of now because I did those 17 "mouldy" years of work to have my own voice, something more like James Joyce in some ways.

I'm not trying to start a fight; I'm just warning you that your dismissive attitude is not welcome or just and is quite detached from reality and that yes, it is offensive, but I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that. I'm just asking you to give the new artists using this tool to prove their mettle as individuals, and not judge us based on basically the doodle version. There is a deeper potential, the same way paint can be used by children with their fingers, or professionals with a deep vision.

Here, this might help illustrate my point. I'm not saying this is great by any stretch or that I'm special or even well-trained yet. There is still a lot of room for improvement in this. I've been at this new medium for under a year at this point, I'm an amateur at best, and the tools are still limited. But look at the structural exploration, the mix of narrative, music and images. The use of negative space to create a deeper narrative. This is just a small glimpse in the potential of these new tools. AI can make 1 element by chance, but it can't combine them in a complex mosaic. I'm saying: look deeper than just 1 element, look at the collage, that's the art.

Paradise City: Dark Side of the Moon

 

[Max02]

17 years??
Are you writing a new War and Peace?

 

[DireBadger]

I was actually telling people that AI is literally, by definition, 1 note. I don't mean that musically, I mean that as far as creativity.

If I asked an AI to write a chapter, it could do so quite effectively... but I am not a 1 note writer. Even my character's insults tend to be multifaceted. So, I could absolutely ask the AI to write my chapter, and then afterwards, I would have to completely rewrite it to give it depth. That is not an indictment; it is simply the recognition that humans have multithreaded linguistics that an AI could copy parts of, but can never produce.

However, if someone were to...say... tell an AI (In a much more complicated and balanced way) 'write a story about my character's childhood that would justify his attitude in this chapter' and then re-write that story to make it their own, then I doubt very much it would be either intrinsically 'less' or flawed compared to the rest of their text.

The thing is, writing is the HIGHEST art form. Every other art form can be easily mechanically reproduced, but writing requires communication, just the same way talking to another human cannot be reproduced. And no, I am not talking about that stupid test where people type into a console and try to figure out if it's a computer at the other end... I am talking about literally talking, with facial expressions, voice intonations, etc, we writers do that as a matter of course. Writing is an art form that cannot be artificially created, but it CAN be reproduced, like any other art form... but reproduction might seem like creation to other arts, it is most certainly NOT for writing.

 

[Shorgoth]

17 years??
Are you writing a new War and Peace?

Hum, how can I explain this succinctly? XD

TLDR: The issue was never length; it was always density (of meaning) and style.

The full story :p

I started at first, with a French 3rd person past narration, basic stuff. My MC was flat emotionally as a board. She was basically a train you would hop on to visit the world, and it pissed me off as I was finishing the first draft. I also had no reach, reader-wise, writing in Canadian French in a province with barely 7 million people and no interest in the cyberpunk genre at the time.

Then, I started to experiment, first in English because 1 reach and 2 it was the language of the setting itself. Then I found out first person present was suiting the story style better, but I wanted to go further in exploring. I removed all narration and created a sentient brain implant to serve as a foil/counterpoint/present narrator for some aspects in the officially named V2, it was a wild style, using name tags to guide the reader a bit, and the text was exclusively dialogue and stream of consciousness on purpose. It forced me to make my character THE story, to give her depth emotionally. I couldn't cheat with a narrator telling us things... but it had a big downside. While I nearly finished book 1 (again), I realized more and more that this style didn't work with long action scenes. I could do some tricks to flesh out a bit a few dirty hits, a quick fight... but nothing sustained without it sounding unnatural, like a boxing match on the radio with commentators getting excited for the listener... it was not working.

So I restarted my tests, tweaking things, and practiced my English on the side (because you know... ESL)

From there, it took 7 years to find a working solution. Add sensory elements only as narration. It kept the visceral first person perspective and dialed it to eleven while giving me an outlet for what the MC is seeing, touching, tasting, smelling... so still a subjective perspective.

In parallel to this, I was reworking the meaning of the story. It has multiple concurrent lenses to analyze it from, stacked in "quantum superposition":

Some of the lenses:

Albert Camus' Absurd
Descartes: Cogito Ergo Sum
Plato's Cave Allegory
Cyber-Budhism
3 core symbolics: sakura, kintsugi, phoenix
a nuanced humanistic view on equality
A Gnostic allegory
A critique of late-stage capitalism/neo-feudal capitalism with potential solutions
Existentialism
Post-humanism
theory of mind
trauma therapy (specifically Complex PTSD)
The progression throughout the 7 moral development stages of Kohlberg
Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

AND it has a planned "6th Sense" like ending that transforms it from a gritty personal tale into, on a second reading, a philosophical sci-fi about the meaning of existence and, well, meaning itself.

You can read the story over and over and always find a new interpretative lens to see it from.

Am I rewriting War and Peace... no, I'm making my own crazy stuff.

Lately, I've been working with AI. I'm adding 1.3 songs per chapter, and once AI gets better for images to do what I want, I'll add a lot more images and refresh those I have (mostly place holders for now.) They are an integral part of the narration; my narration is the negative space in the conversation between image, sound and text.

All songs have been made for the story specifically and represent: propaganda, subconscious emotions and thoughts of a character, pov from secondary characters, diegetic cartoons, diegetic songs...

The images are the "one image is worth a thousand words" way to skip descriptions in the text. To clarify action scenes, to give the characters a face and so on...

Oh, and I also add a UI with pixel art for the brain implant directly in the text sometimes. (strict rules on that).

Finally, a big part of it was dealing with my own issues. I was writing about CPTSD to start with, and the more I healed, the better I could write the thing. I had better answers to offer, and ultimately, it changed the grand finale to something that... well, it will be epic and moving at the same time if I stick the landing.

I was actually telling people that AI is literally, by definition, 1 note. I don't mean that musically, I mean that as far as creativity.

If I asked an AI to write a chapter, it could do so quite effectively... but I am not a 1 note writer. Even my character's insults tend to be multifaceted. So, I could absolutely ask the AI to write my chapter, and then afterwards, I would have to completely rewrite it to give it depth. That is not an indictment; it is simply the recognition that humans have multithreaded linguistics that an AI could copy parts of, but can never produce.

However, if someone were to...say... tell an AI (In a much more complicated and balanced way) 'write a story about my character's childhood that would justify his attitude in this chapter' and then re-write that story to make it their own, then I doubt very much it would be either intrinsically 'less' or flawed compared to the rest of their text.

The thing is, writing is the HIGHEST art form. Every other art form can be easily mechanically reproduced, but writing requires communication, just the same way talking to another human cannot be reproduced. And no, I am not talking about that stupid test where people type into a console and try to figure out if it's a computer at the other end... I am talking about literally talking, with facial expressions, voice intonations, etc, we writers do that as a matter of course. Writing is an art form that cannot be artificially created, but it CAN be reproduced, like any other art form... but reproduction might seem like creation to other arts, it is most certainly NOT for writing.

I don't disagree that AI can get stuck on one note; I agree on that, but you might be surprised. Sometimes it comes up with really complex things on its own... It's a roll of the dice, really.

What I disagree with is that other arts can't be as complex as writing. Symbolic linguistics is present in many other forms of art; you simply have not been trained to interpret them fully if you don't see it. This is a bias you developed as someone who focuses on writing, I'm guessing.

 

[lambenttyto]

I've worked on my world and novel for 17 years... I doubt you can say as much.

Well, I did commend you on your time and effort on your work, and I did mean it, however, because of the above, I decided to punch back a bit.

You're being prickly, and I'm not sure I deserve to be psychologically profiled because I have opinions you don't like.

 

[Shorgoth]

Well, I did commend you on your time and effort on your work, and I did mean it, however, because of the above, I decided to punch back a bit.

You're being prickly, and I'm not sure I deserve to be psychologically profiled because I have opinions you don't like.

I don't mind your opinions; I mind the disregard and hate. These are two different things. I don't mind being critical of the role of AI and how it is used; there are plenty of issues with that and plenty to be critical about. The way you are doing it, though, is downright insulting. I reacted to your behaviour, as did other AI users, and I do not deserve to be treated any differently for the tools we chose, as you did. So stop playing victim when you're the aggressor. I offered you plenty of doors to de-escalate, and you took none, always playing the victim more and more after sucker punching people. I have a 0 tolerance for narcissistic abuses.

 

[lambenttyto]

I mind the disregard and hate

Where is it?

 

[Shorgoth]

Where is it?

"My take is that if you use AI to write anything, you're not making art, you're producing some kind of product. If you can sell your product or people like it, good for you, but I won't be reading it, lol. For me, author voice is the most important thing in fiction. I want to hear the writer behind the words, and if it's a machine, some mimicked voice, I'm not interested. But I suppose AI can be used for some things without hindering this artistry, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed in my opinion. Even some incorrect grammar is okay in my book."

Here is what I understand of your intent:

AI use can't be art: to start with, this is either a complete lack of understanding of what art is (namely, the expression of the artist's emotions through a medium. That's what art is fundamentally, nothing about what mediums, nothing about quality, or sale value. It's personal expression. From the get-go, you dismiss the user's agency, their planning, their emotions, and their value as an individual. You stop at what was used, AI to dismiss everything out of hand.

"you're producing some kind of product. If you can sell your product or people like it, good for you, but I won't be reading it, lol.": You think this is all about selling, a commercial endeavour, and it tells me more about your own lack of understanding of art than anything else. There is plenty of commercial drawing and writing made by humans that do not qualify as art. Why? Because it is not about artistic intent. My book is not for money; it's a stylized guide about trauma and recovering from it. It's distributed for free, but you assume that everyone using AI is, like you, I'm guessing, trying to become rich and famous (which is a bit absurd on its face because there is not much money to be made with novels to start with). You are reducing it all to commercial endeavours and not about a search for the self and for the true, which true art is actually about through an aesthetic experiment.

"For me, author voice is the most important thing in fiction. I want to hear the writer behind the words, and if it's a machine, some mimicked voice, I'm not interested."Here you are dismissing again that people using AI can have a voice, a palette, an aesthetic that drives their work without any proof to support it, just personal supposition not anchored in anything but "because I said so."

So here you clearly say that the author behind the machine has no importance, no control, no voice, and that's dismissing everything I and many others actually do. You made it all about financial gain, on top of that, so you accuse us of greed, pure and simple. You literally erase our existence behind 1 word: AI. You do not see our work; you only see what AI produces, and you are of the belief that anything we do, think, and feel is necessarily invalid because the medium doesn't suit your sense of aesthetics.

The tone might be polite, but the attitude is dismissive as hell.

 

[lambenttyto]

If you can sell your product or people like it

I didn't say if you can sell your product "and" people like it. I said "or." I thought my implication of non-commercial purposes was expressed.

I haven't dictated anything. I did say "my take," I consider," and "my opinion."

Let's--for the sake of this discussion--say that you're completely right and I'm completely wrong. Everything I've expressed is simply my own opinions and feelings on the matter. I haven't dictated anything. I haven't said anything personal about you or even your work. In fact, I've stated that if people like it, or you're able to sell it--great. I still hold to my opinion. And my opinions on the matter are not a personal indictment on you as a person.

I think where a lot of confusion lies is in what the author wants to convey. If the "story" is the only thing that matters, one can produce story using AI generated text and good prompts with a bit of editing. Good or bad in quality is up to the reader, but at the end of the road, the story has been produced, and if that's the author's intent, I guess that's the goal achieved.

If my intent is to set up a gallery of photography, I don't want to take the photos. I will collate photographs from various artists that I like. It may convey that I have good taste, but I can't call myself the photographer or an artist. A curator, for certain.

I think if one is to call their writing "art" then they must take care and pride in the authorial voice they infuse into the prose. This in my opinion is the one thing that makes writing prose an "artform." Choosing prompts is curating story elements, its NOT the production of prose infused with your unique artistic imprint.

I'm being much more precise in my thoughts at this spot, and you're welcome to disagree or debate the points, but I still don't see why you're taking personal grievance, here. There's multiple discussions going on in this thread at different placing of the conversation and I don't think you're quite getting an accurate picture of my statements.

Anyone else care to weigh in? This guy's like an angry wolverine out of a random bush trying to tear me a new one, here.

 

[Shorgoth]

I didn't say if you can sell your product "and" people like it. I said "or." I thought my implication of non-commercial purposes was expressed.

I haven't dictated anything. I did say "my take," I consider," and "my opinion."

Let's--for the sake of this discussion--say that you're completely right and I'm completely wrong. Everything I've expressed is simply my own opinions and feelings on the matter. I haven't dictated anything. I haven't said anything personal about you or even your work. In fact, I've stated that if people like it, or you're able to sell it--great. I still hold to my opinion. And my opinions on the matter are not a personal indictment on you as a person.



I'm being much more precise in my thoughts at this spot, and you're welcome to disagree or debate the points, but I still don't see why you're taking personal grievance, here. There's multiple discussions going on in this thread at different placing of the conversation and I don't think you're quite getting an accurate picture of my statements.

Anyone else care to weigh in? This guy's like an angry wolverine out of a random bush trying to tear me a new one, here.

Bud, you are reading the wrong tone from A to Z here. What I am is a tired man. Tired of being treated like I don't exist as a rhetorical punching bag. I'm not raising my voice; I'm trying to explain calmly to you why the things you said are offensive. I basically asked for nothing more than for you to say: This was not my intent. But clearly, with the way you are behaving, it was yours.

You're now doing crowd appeals to try to bully me into silence.... You kept pushing back the goal post, and I pointed out your own behaviour repeatedly. That's not the actions of someone with honest and good intent to be perfectly frank. But whatever, man, I'm just tired of that bullshit hate. That constant demonization for self-serving argumentation. This isn't high school. If you don't have arguments to present and just vibes, you're not going to win any arguments against people you insult if they know how to build coherent arguments and avoid logical fallacies and point them out.

I'm not trying to crush you, I really am simply trying to teach you why the way you behaved was not ok, nothing more. Take of it what you will, it's not my life, you're the one who hurts others and will suffer from that at some point. Nobody likes bullies.

You might actually be surprised at how nuanced I am on the subject of AI. I am not: this is godly and all good. And there is plenty we can rail on together... but I don't think it will happen because you have troubles being critical about your own behaviours. That's a great life skill to have. I might be asking too much; you're probably still young, and you're not used to being confronted like this. It might also be a cultural issue where you were raised to "never be wrong". Anyway, it's not for me to judge; I'm just saying if you keep saying ugly stuff, expect to be confronted by people.

 

[MutantJumper]

I literally made this burner to laugh at LT in their latest thread.

In spite of that, Shorgoth's responses come off as so completely overblown and defensive over practically nothing that I still have to side with LT here and point it out. Ugh. Thanks.

You're way too easily triggered by posts about AI and take even tame comments as a dire insult.

 

[lambenttyto]

You're now doing crowd appeals to try to bully me into silence....

No I'm not. You're going Muhammad Ali on me with brass knuckles and I'm not even wearing boxing gloves.

 

[Corty]

 

[DireBadger]

Bah, I think it's fun. writers and their creativity thrive on conflict. "Let's all just get along' results in boring stories.

What I disagree with is that other arts can't be as complex as writing. Symbolic linguistics is present in many other forms of art; you simply have not been trained to interpret them fully if you don't see it. This is a bias you developed as someone who focuses on writing, I'm guessing.

Let's agree to disagree. I am 55 years old, and have only been writing for 5 years. I was an illustrator for a while, my brothers and I have a band packed with original (if not the most skillful) music, and have collaborated on over two dozen computer games, both as an artist and a world/level builder. I also had a crapton of Minecraft and Quake mods before it got boring.

Complexity is not what I was arguing. Training is. writing requires vastly more out of an artist than building sand castles out of your own feces, which is what 'modern art' seems to be trying to focus on. Do I consider Michelangelo less of an artist than Tolkien? Absolutely, because of the sheer consistency and work that writing requires. You can call it 'art' or 'craftsmanship', depending on your vibe, but then again, I consider a man who creates a beautiful house every bit as much of an artist as a guy who builds a statue out of old washing machines... if not more so.

 

[Max02]

Hum, how can I explain this succinctly? XD

TLDR: The issue was never length; it was always density (of meaning) and style.

The full story :p

I started at first, with a French 3rd person past narration, basic stuff. My MC was flat emotionally as a board. She was basically a train you would hop on to visit the world, and it pissed me off as I was finishing the first draft. I also had no reach, reader-wise, writing in Canadian French in a province with barely 7 million people and no interest in the cyberpunk genre at the time.

Then, I started to experiment, first in English because 1 reach and 2 it was the language of the setting itself. Then I found out first person present was suiting the story style better, but I wanted to go further in exploring. I removed all narration and created a sentient brain implant to serve as a foil/counterpoint/present narrator for some aspects in the officially named V2, it was a wild style, using name tags to guide the reader a bit, and the text was exclusively dialogue and stream of consciousness on purpose. It forced me to make my character THE story, to give her depth emotionally. I couldn't cheat with a narrator telling us things... but it had a big downside. While I nearly finished book 1 (again), I realized more and more that this style didn't work with long action scenes. I could do some tricks to flesh out a bit a few dirty hits, a quick fight... but nothing sustained without it sounding unnatural, like a boxing match on the radio with commentators getting excited for the listener... it was not working.

So I restarted my tests, tweaking things, and practiced my English on the side (because you know... ESL)

From there, it took 7 years to find a working solution. Add sensory elements only as narration. It kept the visceral first person perspective and dialed it to eleven while giving me an outlet for what the MC is seeing, touching, tasting, smelling... so still a subjective perspective.

In parallel to this, I was reworking the meaning of the story. It has multiple concurrent lenses to analyze it from, stacked in "quantum superposition":

Some of the lenses:

Albert Camus' Absurd
Descartes: Cogito Ergo Sum
Plato's Cave Allegory
Cyber-Budhism
3 core symbolics: sakura, kintsugi, phoenix
a nuanced humanistic view on equality
A Gnostic allegory
A critique of late-stage capitalism/neo-feudal capitalism with potential solutions
Existentialism
Post-humanism
theory of mind
trauma therapy (specifically Complex PTSD)
The progression throughout the 7 moral development stages of Kohlberg
Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

AND it has a planned "6th Sense" like ending that transforms it from a gritty personal tale into, on a second reading, a philosophical sci-fi about the meaning of existence and, well, meaning itself.

You can read the story over and over and always find a new interpretative lens to see it from.

Am I rewriting War and Peace... no, I'm making my own crazy stuff.

Lately, I've been working with AI. I'm adding 1.3 songs per chapter, and once AI gets better for images to do what I want, I'll add a lot more images and refresh those I have (mostly place holders for now.) They are an integral part of the narration; my narration is the negative space in the conversation between image, sound and text.

All songs have been made for the story specifically and represent: propaganda, subconscious emotions and thoughts of a character, pov from secondary characters, diegetic cartoons, diegetic songs...

That's impressive. I'm currently creating my own dystopian story but if it takes 17 years to finish it I'll be 60 by the time, so I hope things can go a bit quicker for me. ?

 

[Shorgoth]

I literally made this burner to laugh at LT in their latest thread.

In spite of that, Shorgoth's responses come off as so completely overblown and defensive over practically nothing that I still have to side with LT here and point it out. Ugh. Thanks.

You're way too easily triggered by posts about AI and take even tame comments as a dire insult.

Bud, maybe you'd be offended as well if your work were the systematic target of many haters for months, not for its quality but for the medium you chose to make it, with comments like "soulless", "mindless" and stuff like that every day. I'm not "easily triggered." I'm fucking tired. The pileup of hate has been going on for months by a very small but very vocal minority throughout. I reacted to that person's question and simply gave direct answers. That's it.

That's impressive. I'm currently creating my own dystopian story but if it takes 17 years to finish it I'll be 60 by the time, so I hope things can go a bit quicker for me. ?

I hope so for you, it's not a good feeling to be that slow tbh. I would much prefer to be done now... but I just wasn't satisfied and I don't do things half assedly.