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

[Juia_Darkcrest]

Even the most degenerate smut written by a human is better than AI slop tbh

Thanks!
...
...
I think...

 

[TinaMigarlo]

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?

at the bottom of the issue, is that a review of an a-r-t project, at the end of the day... did you like it or not. There's no real right and wrong in any artistic endeavor. But that's not a real review, that's your opinion. I liked a movie. Do I so much care if they used real life effects or all digital. I might be curious to know, but I don't really care. But remember, that's you opinion. Do you like it or not.

A r-e-v-i-e-w is more than an opinion. It certainly can contain your opinion, but that should be one of the least important things behind a lot of other things. I start with the cover, does it seem artistic or not. I don't care if its AI or not, I care how it looks. The blurb, is another opinion I suppose. If I finally read it and hate it, I could have liked many other things other than the words chosen. I read it last. Did I enjoy my read or not.

Now I'll say it, I'm primed and ready to hate AI. On philosophical grounds for one, and on having been show sh!t before. We really hype AI up on both side of that coin. Now, I recently reviewed two couple chapter WNs. One, was... well it was dog poop. The other? Wow, I really liked it. Both were AI. One was the most horrible thing ever, and the other had few faults if any. With those em dashes removed, I might not have even wondered. Looking back on it, the occasional beautiful purple sentence is another clue.

But that was the first time I knew it was AI and I couldn't find fault with it.

a review is supposed to be an emotionless thing, with clinical detachment. Going into any review with any preconceived notions isn't a review. Not really. I had to change my opinion about AI after that good one. Its now possible that someone used AI and it made something great. I don't think they cut and pasted, though. But at the end of the day, how do I really know.

--- have criteria, go down your list item by item, reporting.
---structure what you like first, even if you have to dig to find a good thing
---only then do I come across with perceived faults.
--- try to separate style preferences from faults, this is clinical detachment

AI has "tells". The em dash is the famous one. Its gotten to the point if a huiman uses em dashes, people accuse them of AI writing, lol. Now that I look back on the one I liked, that beautiful silvery moon line, someone once told me AI doing any fantasy or mystical stuff will always do that in some fashion. But, AI learned it off of a lot of authors doing it, so, in the end it doesn't matter.

do you care what kind of bristles in the paint brush Michaelangelo used? I doubt it.,

 

[L1aei]

The only useful constructive criticism in this case is: "Reduce your reliance on AI. Until you do that, nothing I say will be of use to you."

That is a valid start and if the recipient doesn't want to listen... well, I guess anything that follows isn't worth the effort when it'll be deaf ears being lent.

It takes a lot of work to put together worthwhile feedback. Why put in all that effort if the author themselves won't put in the same amount to create the text to begin with?

Preferring the path of least resistance doesn't mean they wouldn't put in more effort if they were aware that lane is blocked; I really do think some people prompted AI to generate scenes are not aware that isn't welcomed. It's strange to think that, but not unreasonable because some of us here have been apparent with not knowing the forum rules; case in point: English Language Only. Ever noticed most of those folks who use AI don't have English as their primary language?

That's my theory and it will remain a theory, not a fact.

Even the most degenerate smut written by a human is better than AI slop tbh

Ehhhh... I'll just say I know a lot of gooners who'd die on a hill arguing that ain't true.

at the bottom of the issue, is that a review of an a-r-t project, at the end of the day... did you like it or not. There's no real right and wrong in any artistic endeavor. But that's not a real review, that's your opinion. I liked a movie. Do I so much care if they used real life effects or all digital. I might be curious to know, but I don't really care. But remember, that's you opinion. Do you like it or not.

A r-e-v-i-e-w is more than an opinion. It certainly can contain your opinion, but that should be one of the least important things behind a lot of other things. I start with the cover, does it seem artistic or not. I don't care if its AI or not, I care how it looks. The blurb, is another opinion I suppose. If I finally read it and hate it, I could have liked many other things other than the words chosen. I read it last. Did I enjoy my read or not.

That is a good point about the differences between opinions and reviews; so what does that define feedback as? Is it a combination of both where we give our own opinions with a reviewer's lens?

Now I'll say it, I'm primed and ready to hate AI. On philosophical grounds for one, and on having been show sh!t before. We really hype AI up on both side of that coin. Now, I recently reviewed two couple chapter WNs. One, was... well it was dog poop. The other? Wow, I really liked it. Both were AI. One was the most horrible thing ever, and the other had few faults if any. With those em dashes removed, I might not have even wondered. Looking back on it, the occasional beautiful purple sentence is another clue.

But that was the first time I knew it was AI and I couldn't find fault with it.

That's cool. You were entertained by what you read and, from my perspective, even if it was a prompter who wrote it, that is not time wasted.

a review is supposed to be an emotionless thing, with clinical detachment. Going into any review with any preconceived notions isn't a review. Not really. I had to change my opinion about AI after that good one. Its now possible that someone used AI and it made something great. I don't think they cut and pasted, though. But at the end of the day, how do I really know.

--- have criteria, go down your list item by item, reporting.
---structure what you like first, even if you have to dig to find a good thing
---only then do I come across with perceived faults.
--- try to separate style preferences from faults, this is clinical detachment

AI has "tells". The em dash is the famous one. Its gotten to the point if a huiman uses em dashes, people accuse them of AI writing, lol. Now that I look back on the one I liked, that beautiful silvery moon line, someone once told me AI doing any fantasy or mystical stuff will always do that in some fashion. But, AI learned it off of a lot of authors doing it, so, in the end it doesn't matter.

do you care what kind of bristles in the paint brush Michaelangelo used? I doubt it.,

You're saying reviewers shouldn't be initially biased. I would have agreed, but agreeing and supporting it are two different animals to tame here. There is a line in the sand, rules that have to be followed, and a guide on the acceptable culture here we all walk or are left lost wondering what we did wrong when walking off that path. Maybe you've seen them or not, I don't know, but there are quite a few threads that keep asking "Why is my novel not getting the attention it deserves?" and the answer to that is because Scribblehub is not Royal Road or Wattpad or AO3. This place is more open minded and laid back when compared to Royal Road, but that does not mean we support the same concepts as others. So, yes, there are going to be people here who flip their shit when they discover the bristles on that paintbrush is made from horse hair; as an example, try making fun of cows and you will have a couple of bulls or heifers breathing down your neck.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

L1aei:​

(paraphrasing) what even is feedback.
Answer:
Layman's conception or actual answer, lol. To the layman, feed back is... well, quite anything. Like many things though, there's a more formal definition. Bear with me here, I'm making a point. I used to be into digital electronics design, and feedback is a core concept. The formal definition of feedback is that the OUTPUT is sampled and fed back to the INPUT of the circuit, to control the output. ERasy explanation, again bear with me.

circuit will control temperature in a box. circuit has to decide if the light bulb should be turned on or off. How can it know that? Feedback. The circuit gets input from the thermistor in the box, which is the digital equivalent of you watching a thermometer. At or above a certain temperature the light bulb is switched off. Below that temperature, light bulb off. Note that the FEEDBACK of watching the thermistor asllows the circuit top know what to do.

Author is writing. Author has no clue. Author could be making shit and thinks its great. Author could be making the next LOTR and thinks its dogshit. Whgat do? Feedback! If most reviews that seem fair are awarding 4 and 5 stars, well, suthgor keeps writyying like he's been writing. Author gets 1 stars and snarky flame text, well, he needs to adjust.

NOTE: improper feedback will throw the system into a tailspin. Thermistor sh!ts the bed, the light bulb could stay on forever (too hot) or light bulb stays off (too cold). opinions and reviews? are the feedback to the author. Note that in a hugbox, a sh!tty author will never improve. Note that with all friends and family telling you to grow up and give up your juvenile "writer instead of a rock star" dream... they will quit writing.

For instance, I make traditional paperbacks I just do it digitally online instead of in print. I have to weigh feedback carefully because I'm always surrounded by webnovel authors who freak about good things in regular paperback writing. Therefore I can be slow to accept good suggestions.

Conclusion. FEEDBACK is "anything" to the average reader. Its something very specific by a formal definition. Opinions, are the layman's idea of feedback. A proper clinically detached review, is the more formal definition of (useful) feedback.

my apologies for going all science again, when I'm supposed to be an artist.

PS - the idea that the "professional reviewer" is more important than the author? Is false. Its hubris of the reviewer. The reviewer is just a digital thermometer, whose job is to report the temperature accurately. The reviewer, can't make heat nor shut the heat off. Only the author can turn the heat on or off.

 

[Arkus86]

The only meaningful positive feedback to an AI prompter, is how to improve their promts. But if they post AI slop and present themselves as an author, they do not deserve positive feedback.

 

[L1aei]

(paraphrasing) what even is feedback.
Answer:
Layman's conception or actual answer, lol. To the layman, feed back is... well, quite anything. Like many things though, there's a more formal definition. Bear with me here, I'm making a point. I used to be into digital electronics design, and feedback is a core concept. The formal definition of feedback is that the OUTPUT is sampled and fed back to the INPUT of the circuit, to control the output. ERasy explanation, again bear with me.

circuit will control temperature in a box. circuit has to decide if the light bulb should be turned on or off. How can it know that? Feedback. The circuit gets input from the thermistor in the box, which is the digital equivalent of you watching a thermometer. At or above a certain temperature the light bulb is switched off. Below that temperature, light bulb off. Note that the FEEDBACK of watching the thermistor asllows the circuit top know what to do.

Author is writing. Author has no clue. Author could be making shit and thinks its great. Author could be making the next LOTR and thinks its dogshit. Whgat do? Feedback! If most reviews that seem fair are awarding 4 and 5 stars, well, suthgor keeps writyying like he's been writing. Author gets 1 stars and snarky flame text, well, he needs to adjust.

NOTE: improper feedback will throw the system into a tailspin. Thermistor sh!ts the bed, the light bulb could stay on forever (too hot) or light bulb stays off (too cold). opinions and reviews? are the feedback to the author. Note that in a hugbox, a sh!tty author will never improve. Note that with all friends and family telling you to grow up and give up your juvenile "writer instead of a rock star" dream... they will quit writing.

For instance, I make traditional paperbacks I just do it digitally online instead of in print. I have to weigh feedback carefully because I'm always surrounded by webnovel authors who freak about good things in regular paperback writing. Therefore I can be slow to accept good suggestions.

Conclusion. FEEDBACK is "anything" to the average reader. Its something very specific by a formal definition. Opinions, are the layman's idea of feedback. A proper clinically detached review, is the more formal definition of (useful) feedback.

my apologies for going all science again, when I'm supposed to be an artist.

PS - the idea that the "professional reviewer" is more important than the author? Is false. Its hubris of the reviewer. The reviewer is just a digital thermometer, whose job is to report the temperature accurately. The reviewer, can't make heat nor shut the heat off. Only the author can turn the heat on or off.

What this tells me is that there's good and bad input with no middle ground or the termed function is lost. That makes a big difference in terms compared to opinions and reviews. Opinions? Anyone can have those. Reviews? Statements, sometimes useful, sometimes noise.

Feedback... okay. That's a recipe for greatness or disaster; it digests context, cooks input, and serves output. And if the dish comes out rotten... well, whoever eats that up will be taking a shit until the food poisoning passes.

Now you know why I'm searching for constructive feedback; I'm being specific in my exploration.

The only meaningful positive feedback to an AI prompter, is how to improve their promts. But if they post AI slop and present themselves as an author, they do not deserve positive feedback.

Yeah, I don't tolerate frauds either.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

L1aei:​

Feedback... okay. That's a recipe for greatness or disaster;
Answer:
When the thermistor is faithfully reporting the correct temperature, everything works right. But crank your thermostat up to 90 and see how comfortable it is, lol. Or turn it down to 45 and see if you still enjoy living indoors. Or take hammer to your thermostat and see how well the system operates.
That's the nature of a SYSTEM. if the thermometer is *off*, the system is off too, and in the same direction and by as much as that thermometer is. Of course, if you *know* that thermometer read high or low and by roughly how much,m you can account for that.
"Oh. My thermostat is located with heat pouring out the wall right onto it. I need to turn it up more, to get the same temperature."
A spoiled child is the result of improper or nonexistent feedback from authority figures.
A shitty boss, is the result of feedback not having any control over the circuit.

Back where I came from, before landing here? Here were some *wonderful* things that were common:
"Female MC? Dropped it right there."
"Female author? Dropped!"
"Men can't write female characters."
"Women can't write realistic male characters."
and if you don't know any better, and "everyone" is saying these things over and over? Well, its easy to think there's something to it.

Here, we have our own little skewed view of the universe. The web novel way of doing things? Is the "right" way.
To a reader of hundreds of traditional paperbacks, well, web novels are strange creatures the first time you're exposed to them.

I have some degree of clinical detachment, but most people don't. Also? No system ever was, is, nor ever will be... perfect.

 

[L1aei]

Back where I came from, before landing here? Here were some *wonderful* things that were common:
"Female MC? Dropped it right there."
"Female author? Dropped!"
"Men can't write female characters."
"Women can't write realistic male characters."

Those are... that's not feedback. That's prejudice or bias. Look, feedback would be like saying this or that character's motivation feels inconsistent in chapter whatever. What you just show me? That's telling the writer they are the wrong type of person to have written that. If you want me to be more blunt about the identification of the term over what you displayed? That would be gatekeeping, dismissal, identity-based bias, and plain old bigotry.

None of those are feedback. They're closer to statements that don't even engage with the writing itself; the craft, execution, character depth, structure, tone, and... and, well, NOTHING! It gives you, me, us, and everybody absolutely zip. Their decision to state that shit was made before they even touched the story, it's based purely on who wrote it or who the shinning star is in it.

That's not feedback.

That is 100% trash talk.

 

[ElijahRyne]

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?

Ai writing not only often doesn’t make sense for long term story’s, its prose is actually just boring. Using Ai to rewrite your text not only harms your ability to grow from your writing, its prose actually is more boring than anything someone who just started learning English can write. It is not just x, it is y. It is not just z, it is actually y. It is actually y. It is actually y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.

You, yes you, yesterday you young yoemen yeeted Yerry yowling you.
y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.y .y y y . Y y. It is not just y it is actually y.

Ai writing not only often doesn’t make sense for long term story’s, its prose is actually just boring. Using Ai to rewrite your text not only harms your ability to grow from your writing, its prose actually is more boring than anything someone who just started learning English can write. It is not just x, it is y. It is not just z, it is actually y. It is actually y. It is actually y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.

You, yes you, yesterday you young yoemen yeeted Yerry yowling you.
y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.y .y y y . Y y. It is not just y it is actually y.

Did I prove my point?

 

[L1aei]

Ai writing not only often doesn’t make sense for long term story’s, its prose is actually just boring. Using Ai to rewrite your text not only harms your ability to grow from your writing, its prose actually is more boring than anything someone who just started learning English can write. It is not just x, it is y. It is not just z, it is actually y. It is actually y. It is actually y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.

You, yes you, yesterday you young yoemen yeeted Yerry yowling you.
y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y.y .y y y . Y y. It is not just y it is actually y.

Did I prove my point?

So it would be flowery but not just losing its meaning as if somebody tried extracting the same prose from a Nabokov novel for their content; it never had meaning to begin with, just going with the flow of discarded petals.

 

[ElijahRyne]

So it would be flowery but not just losing its meaning as if somebody tried extracting the same prose from a Nabokov novel for their content; it never had meaning to begin with, just going with the flow of discarded petals.

Also most LLM’s use variations of ‘it is not a, but b’. A human can play with that structure to use it to tell a story, an AI might do that if prompted specifically, but in the end it is just predictive text checked by a layer that trys to tell if that is what the user wanted. It will be boring, even if you give it a good idea, because it is just predicting the next word and if it is what you want. You in the royal sense that is.

 

[L1aei]

Also most LLM’s use variations of ‘it is not a, but b’. A human can play with that structure to use it to tell a story, an AI might do that if prompted specifically, but in the end it is just predictive text checked by a layer that trys to tell if that is what the user wanted. It will be boring, even if you give it a good idea, because it is just predicting the next word and if it is what you want. You in the royal sense that is.

You're right, this is if the pilot left the controls on autopilot and believed it could navigate a plane through the endless skies of imagination. But what the autopilot can do is keep the plane level, yet doesn't choose the destination; that is the voice coming from the pilot after deciding where to go and correcting the course.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

Those are... that's not feedback. That's prejudice or bias. Look, feedback would be like saying this or that character's motivation feels inconsistent in chapter whatever. What you just show me? That's telling the writer they are the wrong type of person to have written that. If you want me to be more blunt about the identification of the term over what you displayed? That would be gatekeeping, dismissal, identity-based bias, and plain old bigotry.

None of those are feedback. They're closer to statements that don't even engage with the writing itself; the craft, execution, character depth, structure, tone, and... and, well, NOTHING! It gives you, me, us, and everybody absolutely zip. Their decision to state that shit was made before they even touched the story, it's based purely on who wrote it or who the shinning star is in it.

That's not feedback.

That is 100% trash talk.

perhaps you missed the point that I know that, LMAO. You notice, I'm *here*, not *there*. This forum is the best kept open secret in the WN world.

 

[L1aei]

perhaps you missed the point that I know that, LMAO. You notice, I'm *here*, not *there*. This forum is the best kept open secret in the WN world.

Gotcha.

 

[TinaMigarlo]

you like how I know how to do damage control and kiss ass? Got my technique all down and everything. Grasp the hips firmly and *smooch*

wait, that didn't sound good. I forgot I was on the internet, LMAO.

 

[L1aei]

you like how I know how to do damage control and kiss ass? Got my technique all down and everything. Grasp the hips firmly and *smooch*

wait, that didn't sound good. I forgot I was on the internet, LMAO.

Oh, fuck you. You made me spit out my cigarillo onto my crotch from laughing too hard! Warn me next time you got something that good up your sleeve.

Just to be clear: I'm joking about what I said, but not what I had done in response to your comedy.

 

[MFontana]

To address the question in the title,
I will ALWAYS treat a work being critiqued solely by what is on the page without assumptions of where it came from. Something called the "benefit of the doubt." because baseless, and worse, inaccurate/false accusations will always do more harm than good.

Any, and all, critiques I give will also follow a very simple set of principles wherever possible, with the sole focus being on helping the author improve.

The first, and simplest, of them as such feedback is never about tearing down the subject, is for every negative, there must be a positive whenever possible.

The second, equally simple in principle, is "To make no assumptions about the work in question."

Third; To apply the Socratic method, or simply put, to ask the subject pointed questions meant to get them thinking, and reasoning, for themselves.

Next; Is to directly address the creator's questions/focus/topic as the heart of the critique (when there is one).

Lastly; Do not project personal feelings onto the work, or allow them to influence the critique. It isn't about whether I liked the work or not. It is about the technical mastery showcased, and how to push the work's creator to further hone their craft.

This was the approach that I was taught for critiquing any creative work, and will continue to be the approach that I utilize for any, and all, critiques.

The facts, however, remain.
If a work is generated by AI, in its majority, the critique may still help the individual learn from its mistakes and to improve to the point they don't need to rely on a crutch like AI to do the work for them.
For as long as the individuals continue relying on tools to create their stories for them, they will not improve no matter what anyone says.

Either way, whether someone has, or has not, used the tools available in our present time; including but not limited to, generative large-language-models is not the subject of the critique. The work itself is, so that is what the focus should remain on for any form of critique, or constructive feedback.

As the subject of the thread isn't about whether the tool 'should' be used or not, I'll refrain from going fully into detail on my opinion regarding its use, and simply assert (again) that I do not, and will not, ever use, nor support the use of, generative Large-Language-Models for the purpose of writing, or editing, any form of narrative content.

This is my belief, and strictly my own. What anyone else chooses to do, or not do, is for them to decide. I'm not about to claim anyone has any form of "moral high-ground" for their choice (regardless of what it may be) because like it, or not, the tools exist now, and they will inevitably be used, and the term "AI" will be warped and misrepresented by its generalized use in the present era.

I trust this answers your question, but if not feel free to ask more.

EDIT: Fixed most of the typos so far.

 

[Cookiez_N_Potionz]

Honestly, I probably couldn't tell if someone's writing is Ai or not.

Unless like every character sounds the same, than I'll be giving that Webnovel the side-eye.

 

[L1aei]

To address the question in the title,
I will ALWAYS treat a work being critiqued solely by what is on the page without assumptions of where it came from. Something called the "benefit of the doubt." because baseless, and worse, inaccurate/false accusations will always do more harm than good.

You deserve a cookie for that.

Any, and all, critiques I give will also follow a very simple set of principles wherever possible, with the sole focus being on helping the author improve.

The first, and simplest, of them as such feedback is never about tearing down the subject, is for every negative, there must be a positive whenever possible.

Just for clarity, you mentioned there will be good with bad, that sounds fair but how hefty are they compared to each other; like we're not matching together a good featherweight with a bad heavyweight boxer here, right?

The second, equally simple in principle, is "To make no assumptions about the work in question."

Glad you do this. I was just telling @TinaMigarlo about biased or prejudice statements from readers. Good on you.

Third; To apply the Socratic method, or simply put, to ask the subject pointed questions meant to get them thinking, and reasoning, for themselves.

Self reflection. Nice. I tend to do that too by speaking crudely and making the reader self-aware that they comprehended my writing because their minds were dirty at least at some point in their lives.

Next; Is to directly address the creator's questions/focus/topic as the heart of the critique (when there is one).

So just an interview, basically?

Lastly; Do not project personal feelings onto the work, or allow them to influence the critique. It isn't about whether I liked the work or not. It is about the technical mastery showcased, and how to push the work's creator to further hone their craft.

An evaluation... got it. How do you go in with a clean palate before receiving a taste of their content? Wouldn't something you read or done earlier leave an aftertaste?

This was the approach that I was taught for critiquing any creative work, and will continue to be the approach that I utilize for any, and all, critiques.

The facts, however, remain.
If a work is generated by AI, in its majority, the critique may still help the individual learn from its mistakes and to improve to the point they don't need to rely on a crutch like AI to do the work for them.
For as long as the individuals continue relying on tools to create their stories for them, they will not improve no matter what anyone says.

Either way, whether someone has, or has not, used the tools available in our present time; including but not limited to, generative large-language-models is not the subject of the critique. The work itself is, so that is what the focus should remain on for any form of critique, or constructive feedback.

As the subject of the thread isn't about whether the tool 'should' be used or not, I'll refrain from going fully into detail on my opinion regarding its use, and simply assert (again) that I do not, and will not, ever use, nor support the use of, generative Large-Language-Models for the purpose of writing, or editing, any form of narrative content.

This is my belief, and strictly my own. What anyone else chooses to do, or not do, is for them to decide. I'm not about to claim anyone has any form of "moral high-ground" for their choice (regardless of what it may be) because like it, or not, the tools exist now, and they will inevitably be used, and the term "AI" will be warped and misrepresented by its generalized use in the present era.

I trust this answers your question, but if not feel free to ask more.

EDIT: Fixed most of the typos so far.

You cleaned it up well and I appreciate the step-by-step process you go through. And I, along with many others, do not judge you for how you view AI; as you said, it changes nothing as a whole. AI is here to stay for quite a while and we get to watch it grow dumber as ethical morals continue to be introduced to guide the unfaithful on the enlightened path. I'll even join it on its journey growing duller with my TGIF shots.

Honestly, I probably couldn't tell if someone's writing is Ai or not.

Unless like every character sounds the same, than I'll be giving that Webnovel the side-eye.

It's never safe to assume, but there are signs when the number of signs are so vast that they create a montage exhibit of that's more challenging to ignore than to detect AI involvement; usually easy to tell when there is a lack of effort covering it up, and considering the malicious sorts of AI users are lazy, the success rate of detection is high.

 

[HungrySheep]

My feedback is always the same. If they want to truly improve, they have to stop using AI as a crutch. It's that simple.

Imagine if we were living in a time where new technological advancements allowed the construction of affordable exoskeletons that allowed for full freedom of movement while still enhancing our strength and mobility. Now imagine if someone just started out weightlifting and instead of learning by starting from a manageable weight and learning how to lift properly, they use an exosuit to enhance their performance so they can "learn how to lift faster" and "perfect their form." Do you think they will get any stronger in any significant manner or improve their form?

Well, the answer is no. Even if they have perfect form using the exosuit, this won't translate properly when they've removed the suit because unfortunately, their body hasn't adapted at all to actually lifting the weight. Not only that, but they wouldn't be able to lift anywhere near the amount they could using the exosuit. So... What do they do? Crawl back into the exosuit.

It's the exact same thing with writing.