AI glazers are something else
5d 2h ago by piefed.social/u/PugJesus in fuck_ai from media.piefed.social
If you’re going to send me the output of some LLM, do me a favour and just send me the prompt instead. Otherwise I’m going to spend as much time reading it as you spent writing it.
LLMs are stochastic. If I send you the prompt instead of the output, then there's no guarantee that the output you get will be correct. If I generate the text myself, I can verify that it's correct before sending it off.
The problem is that as the recipient, you have no idea whether I've even read the output, let alone verified or understood it. And with the low barrier to entry, it's much more likely that you're getting unverified slop. Sharing the prompt isn't going to help with that.
Edit: sorry, posted before I finished writing.
Of course it will be correct: the prompt contains the idea you wanted to convey. I’ll read that and know what you meant. Feeding that prompt into an LLM doesn’t add any new ideas from you, it just inflates the text like a balloon and gussies it up with useless window dressing.
If anything, it obscures what you meant!
They add new information all the time. That's part of the problem with blindly accepting everything they output.
Yeah and since what they add doesn’t come from you, it’s not your idea, so it isn’t coming from you anymore. It’s like if you commissioned an artist to paint something for you and then gave the painting to a friend and told them you painted it for them… no, you didn’t!
Of course. That's a separate problem. I'm just commenting on the part where you say that they should give you the prompt.
Sticking with your analogy, it's like if you commissioned someone to paint something specific, then decided that you liked the result and wanted to share it with your friends, so you give your friend the instructions you gave to the painter instead of the painting itself.
It’s not the same thing because a human painter understands meaning and intent.
"Write a message to a girl so I look nice and not a creep that wants to fuck her"?
The new kind of writer's block
The AI "artists" really crack me up.
It's like someone telling you they can run really fast, like crazy fast, faster than anyone else in the world.
And then when you ask them to show you, they give you a shit-eating grin and get in a car and hit the gas.
Well said. I swear I'm not being biased just because I loved playing his music on piano
If you need an LLM to tell you how to write then you’re a fraud and a hack. It’s a skill, get good or fuck off, if you want to learn then you have to fucking learn, otherwise you’re just a plagiarist who doesn’t know shit.
there are ways to implement LLM Generative AI creatively but it has nothing to do with what we traditionally perceive as writing fiction. It is more of text adventure interactive writing kind of thing and you still need to do much of everything while generative AI adapts it on the go. that's one of the few legitimate use cases that actually accomplish something that is hard to do otherwise.
I hope I understand correctly what you mean. Lika a text based adventure game but instead of fixed options you write your action and the AI reacts to it.
So a developer could write his own LLM Model and define a setting on what he trains it and then the player have a text based adventure. The game dev has set the story but he player can write his own actions instead of using the predefined ones. The LLM then reacts to them so there is more dynamic in the game.
Is that what you mean for example? If so I would say that is a use case with the limitation that simply using chatgpt or similar would defeat the use case because it is a to general model.
basically yes. technically, you still set a lot of immutable things within the system and establish rigid framework over everything so that AI doesn't go overboard - otherwise it just get instantly amorphous and falls apart.
i've seen two implementations - one featured chatgpt api and it basically freestyled a text adventure over a set framework - you still have to come up with questline patterns and faction dynamics formulas with AI playing up the immersion - things like weather, semi-randomized world-building encounters, basic dialogue. it was gimmicky but workable.
the other one was much more sophisticated - it was built around ollama and it was basically all setting and faction politics built on THEREFORE BUT beats shuffling in and out - basically Fistful of Dollars kind of thing and the goal was to "sequence break" your way into endgame of sorts. So it was a bit of immersive riddle. It was clumsy but intriguing.
Fuck that. Writing is hard in general, if you’re not willing to do the work then you’re not doing the work, doesn’t matter if it’s hard, if you didn’t write it then you’re not writing. No excuses. Stop handing over your imagination just because things that are difficult to do well are difficult to do well.
i don't think you understand what i mean and your comment has nothing to do with what i said.
I don’t think you understood what you meant.
whatever.
The best way I have found to make sense of why some people are so enthousiastic to shill for AI, is to see AI as yet another product that preys upon people's insecurities. In this case it's maybe the worst insecurity of all: feeling like you're less intelligent than other people.
Taking that insecurity as the through-line, this kind of shilling makes perfect sense IMO. It's essentially a form of self soothing, saying "everyone is or will be using this, it's not just me!".
The only people who would use AI for creative work are those who are unwilling to take the time to become good at it or are incapable of doing so.
They're really after the money.
I'll grant that there will be people out there who also don't have the ability to notice that it's garbage being generated.
Where I do live, not only there is absolutely poor art education and appreciation, but there are people who don't care about the artwork -- mostly event and product advertisements on Facebook -- they'll handwave the damn thing as long as it delivers the intended message.
I use AI to help me write poetry in 2 ways:
-
I have a thick accent and it helps me count syllables and determine what the meter will feel like most readers
-
I feed it completed poems and ask it to analyze it for themes and metaphors to ensure that my meaning is being conveyed properly
Rhyming dictionaries and thesaurus.com for the rest
LLMbeciles completely suck at counting anything or checking anything mechanical with text.
As an example, if I try to write a jueju and pass it to an LLMbecile to check if the rules were followed, it will fail to notice:
- Jueju must have 5 characters on each line or 7 characters on each of their four lines. The LLMbeciles often don't notice faux jueju that have, say, 8 or 6 characters on a line. Or that alternate between 5 and 7 characters. Or other routine counting analyses like that.
- Jueju have very specific rhyme patterns. The LLMbeciles will not spot (ever!) faux jueju that don't conform to that.
- Jueju have, as their single hardest element (and the very reason why the poetic form is so well-regarded: someone who can write one of those to this requirement has formidable language skills!), a tonal pattern they must obey.
These three items are entirely mechanical. Counting characters on lines. Checking rhymes. Checking that words conform to tone patterns. There are programs you can get that will mechanically check that for you in microseconds. They're that mechanical and regular. But LLMbeciles can never successfully negotiate all three, and will quite often fail on all three.
And I haven't even got to the part of structural checking; things that require comprehension. Like how the jueju must be formed from two couplets. like how the two couplets form a kind of question/answer, call/response, state/reason or other such relationship. How line 3 must be a twist that shifts the subject of the first couplet to give new insight into the overall topic of the poem, etc. There's just no way in Hell a next-word-guesser is going to handle that.
It works enough for my needs
It works enough for the needs of someone with no standards, I agree.
Why are you being so rude? What do you get out of it?
Possibly I get a slop gobbler to leave a group that is literally called "Fuck AI" and go where his idiocy is welcomed.
Doesn't seem to be working so far, though.
Ok
This is an unpopular opinion, but as someone who builds stuff from scratch, this is the same feeling i get when someone holds up a 3d printed item and goes “i made this”
If they've created the 3d file themselves that seems like an accurate thing to say, as opposed to just printing something off the internet. Obviously the amount of effort and perhaps artistic expression is gonna differ, but like, I think most printed stuff only exists to serve a specific function anyway
That depends, really. Making a decent print can be really difficult and people can be pround of succeeding at that part of the process. Especially if you have a bad printer. Making the actual 3D models yourself on the other hand is no different than making stuff from scratch. It's a skill that you have to aquire.
3d scanning is actually a lot of fun. I had a stint in a museum and we were scanning sculptures for replica molds (because some bitches just can't stop firing ballistic missiles at our museums). However, fixing those 3d models in Blender afterwards was not fun.
I'm pretty amazed what you can do with simple photogrammetry at home, but Blender is still not fun.
it is even less fun when you're just thrown into it without prior training. learning it on the go just because folks who were supposed to do it dropped out was rough.
I don't think that's wrong, but from the other direction.
They're both tools, and as long as you're open about what it actually means to use the tool and what you actually did I don't see an issue.
Sometimes 3D printing is as creative as printing someone else's design. Sometimes the creativity is a modeling and design problem. Sometimes it's a machine operation skill.
AI tools can be "write a book" or "draw me a cat", which isn't much , or it could used to do spot touch ups in a photo, or get feedback on a written work.
Doing something with or without different tools has different advantages and disadvantages, and changes the criteria that you judge it by.
Some people feel the same way about digital cameras or cell phone cameras. I don't think the device picking the exposure time and white balance makes it not your picture, it just means I'm not being impressed by your color pallet, but instead your subject and composition.
To me that's the least annoying part of AI at the moment. I'm open to the notion that you can be creative with tools that remove parts of the challenge, you just don't get credit for the challenge.
Be careful of your use of AI here too.
My phone's camera has "AI" all over it. But since the phone predates the degenerative AI craze, obviously it's not talking about LLMs and something-or-other diffusions and all the other degenerative, hallucinating AI things.
The term "AI" covers a whole bunch of technologies, and most of those have found niches where they're actually useful and don't burn up the planet to use. Like, say, the "AI" photo retouching features of my phone. Which, to be clear, predate what is shilled as "AI" today.
Of course modern phones call what my phone calls "AI" something else: "software". Because that's what "AI" that actually works is called after it has found its niche.
Not to be a serial contrarian, but I'd say what's being "shilled" as AI today is just as much AI as the AI of yesterday. Which is to say intelligent in the sense of "responsive to environmental changes", not "sentient or sapient".
Autocorrect, red eye reduction, and white balance correction are all different types of AI. So is the tuning function on most decent rice cookers. (Depending on the retouch feature you mean it actually could be from the modern AI wave. It started with images because humans notice a 10% gibberish rate in text, but we don't see a 10% error rate when removing a ketchup stain)
I don't think we're actually in disagreement, but I think in this particular threads context it's implicit that the intention of "fuck AI" isn't "fuck my rice cooker and its weight/heat interpolation function".
People feel that same way about any tool, and get a sense of dismissiveness towards people how use them. I usually don't care about the tools people use as long as they don't try to take credit for the part they didn't do. Whittling and using a lathe are different skill levels when making a table leg, and I won't be impressed by your radial symmetry if you used a lathe, but I can still like the table leg.
The biggest difference is that I don't think there's any generalized ethical issues with lathes that need to be addressed.
Getting upset about someone being open about using the tool, or even not being open about using it, is like getting hung up on questions of who gets credit for the symmetry of a table leg when the carpenter used a lathe powered by a live puppy grinder.
Oh, "AI" is purely a marketing term. You know how we know this? We can't define intelligence. There is literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted. So anybody selling "AI", whether it's "neural networks" or "ant colonies" or "genetic algorithms" or whatever technobabble is being used is not intelligence of any kind. You can't make the artificial version, after all, of something we can't identify.
What I was pointing out only is that "AI" photo retouching is not automatically degenerative "AI" photo retouching. The "AI" retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.
Modern phones with the same features don't call those features "AI" because today "AI" means the degenerative crap. They just call it "filtering". (And then, tragically, they put the degenerative crap into the camera software because we're not allowed to have nice things apparently.)
Ah, yes. The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
literally no definition for intelligence that is broadly accepted
You're conflating human intelligence with what it means in computer science. We have no way of consistently and meaningfully ranking human intelligence. The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing. It's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
You may as well say "signals intelligence doesn't exist because we can't define intelligence".
Calling things techno babble doesn't help you look like someone who knows what they're talking about making a distinction.
The "AI" retouching in my phone is not prone to hallucination. It predates the hallucination machines. It just does stuff like (mostly) smoothly removing things like strung cable in photos and that kind of stuff, or does some pretty splendid night time photography.
I hate to break it to you, but that's largely generative AI. You haven't mentioned your phone specifically, but the features in question are at least quite similar to googles magic eraser and night sight features.
Unless your phone is hilariously old, it doesn't predate googles use and development of generative AI.
In one sentence you say it doesn't hallucinate, and the next you say it "mostly" smoothly removes things. First, where do you think it's getting what's behind what it removed? Second, what do you think is happening when it fails to get it right?
The computational photography features are largely a machine learning model being applied to techniques used by traditional photographers.
If you want to use them, I don't care. Just don't pretend they're fundamentally any different than using Photoshop AI tools to do the same thing. It's not. You're using an AI based tool to do something that someone else is doing by hand. It's trained on a dataset pulled from every picture on earth ever uploaded to the Internet.
Your perfectly color calibrated hdr+ photo without any weird stuff blocking the sky doesn't get the same credit as a person who meticulously composited and exposed a set of film photos for those bits.
I literally said one message earlier that my phone predates the outbreak of degenerative AI. I got it in 2021. If that's "hilariously old" to you, so be it. It works (unlike degenerative AI).
The only bit of marketing terminology that has multiple high profile university research labs dedicated to it since the 50s.
The intelligence being referred to in AI is not the same thing.
Now ask yourself this, Sparky. Why was it called "Artificial Intelligence"? If it was, and I quote:
... comparing the abstract notion of a triangle to a rabbit.
I'll give you a little clue: "artificial intelligence" gets more research grants than does any of these:
- string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements
- brain-damaged linear classifier
- string of fancy-schmancy if/then statements disguised as a flowchart
- curve fitting through brain-damaged linear classifier
- precious, fussy line-drawer
- shallow pattern matcher but hey at least it eats all the available hardware (phase I)
- scoreboard-directed brute force button masher
- "what if we ran the shallow pattern matcher backwards" but hey, at least it eats more than all the available hardware (phase II)
Yeah, so your phone is definitely using the modern iteration of generative AI for the features you're defending. By "hilariously old" I meant more along the lines of "2014". It is exactly what I was talking about when I was talking about smartphone AI features.
It kinda feels like your problem with modern AI is less the ethical issues and more the results you get from it, with the way that you're defending it in the use case you like by saying it's a different type.
As for your odd attack on an academic field: none of those things existed when the departments were founded. Those were all the names for the grants they proposed that led to them creating those things.
Why do you have a hard time accepting that maybe a term has different meanings in different contexts, and using that as the basis for your criticism is shallow compared to any of the other incredibly valid reasons to criticize how it's built, supported, marketed, used or advertised?
Phone was released in 2021, meaning the software in it was made long before that. ChatGPT was pissed onto the world in 2022. Obviously exactly the same technology used.
Fucking Hell you're an annoying twat.
... You know literally nothing about the technology if you can only conceive of chatgpt as the baseline, or if you think that it started in 2022.
Chatgpt is based on GPT, the first version of which was released in 2018 and based on work done by Google from the early 2010s through their publicized works in 2017.
If you're so annoyed, why do you keep responding? I think you're just defensive about the AI tools that you like and want them to be somehow different from the ones you don't.
That's an interesting take. It does beg the question: What is "from scratch?"
Does a potter need to go to a river bank to dig the clay he will make into a beautiful tea pot? Or is it still "from scratch" if he buys prepared clay? The question can apply to a woodworker. Does the use of power tools to make a chest of drawers less of a creative endeavor than someone that uses all hand tools to make the same chest? Do you need to fell the tree and mill it in to boards yourself to fit your definition?
Where does "from scratch" begin, and where does it end?
I was wondering the same myself. I carve signature seals/chops. I didn't make my knives from ores I refined myself. I didn't cut the various stones into the traditional chop sizes and shapes. I didn't invent the calligraphic forms used to represent the characters in the various seal scripts.
Is this "from scratch"? Is anything really "from scratch" anywhere?
I don't know myself. I don't think anyone really has an answer.
What you do requires skills. And most people don't have hose skills. I perhaps view what you do as being a craftsman. You take things that others have shaped and then assemble them into something that is different and more desirable. And there can be craftsmanship and artistry involved by everyone along the way.
I was a toolmaker. I designed and built tools. I sat at my desk and designed the tool in a CAD program, generated tool paths in a CAM program. Then used CAM to create all the G-Code needed. I then sent the program to the machine. I loaded the code and fixtured the piece of steel. At the push of a button the machine did the work as I stood there and watched. Not much different than AI in some ways.
If one sets aside the ecological disaster that AI is for a moment, (and this is the biggest evil IMO). I start wonder if AI is in and of itself "evil" or is it just a tool we haven't mastered the use of yet. I honestly go back and forth in this. I don't like AI generated art that is passed off as "real", but I can understand and be impressed by the skills it took to manage the tool to make that art. I certainly don't have those skills. But I'm all for the AI currently looking at my MRI scans for signs of cancer cells that even the most skilled radiologist might easily miss at the early stages.
It's a fuzzy and hazy world. And the older I get, the less sure of the answers I thought I had.
I've shouted from the rooftops before many times there is nothing creative from AI writing. It just repeats the same terse, sentence structures! AI had never fallen in love, grieved, or inspired before!
to be fair - player piano is a great idea and there were composers who did stuff specifically for it - Nancarrow is the most prominent one. it's a completely different aesthetic and requires not trying to make it seem like anything it is not though.
If she was taking about just a proof read, then I'm okay with it. But I don't believe she is taking about proof reading. AI should be nowhere near the creative process.
there's actually an entire subgenre of writers pretending to workshop story ideas with generative AI but actually trolling to get the most ridiculous responses. it works best with Claude because it create dedicated skills to make it even more stupid. Not everyone's cup of tea but sometimes it is funny when clanker attempts to make sense of some obviously ridiculous story pitch while the writer keeps pulling the rug from under it.
If you need to proof read something you can do it with spell check in your weird processor and an understanding of grammar.
I ran your comment through my weird processor (my brain) and found a typo!
Awesome. I love it when I fuck up lol
AI LLM hallucinations are incredible for creativity, but the people who just lean on them for the majority of it are lazy.
Pointless sidebar: Westworld (Season 1) uses a player piano as a metaphor for AI.
And player piano is what they should have said. Don't besmirch electric/Rhodes pianos, they're awesome.
Some of these fanatics are utterly arrogant greedy narcissists with no redeeming qualities at all.
Explosion of creativity? Do you mean the laziest, untalented, uninteresting people on the planet finally being able to vomit their stupid ideas out into the world in the style of the greatest human artists of history?
This made for a nice block list. Thanks!
Quite ironically, this statement is probably a true one whether it's a slop gobbler or a slop hater looking at the comments. 🤣
Indeed
I am speaking from the perspective of a hater, and if gobblers end up blocking me instead, its still a win for me lmao
😆 Ayup. This post has been a gold mine of accounts to block. After mocking them.
I read this as all glazers and I was wondering what this person had against glass installers.
Bruh, NPR had an interview recently with an author who is a fairly big name already. She was preaching the glories of ai. Like how do you fall so hard‽
It's like sitting at one of those old player pianos you'd put the rolled paper in and it would play the sing itself, claiming you are a modern Mozart. Despite not creating the piano, music roll, or ever doing anything special besides putting the roll in.
OTOH, is using electronically created music not art too? If you write your music and put it into FL Studio or something similar to "play" the music for you, is it not art?
I think the electric piano is a false equivalent here. Electronically created music is not the same as AI.
I have little issue with electronically created music so long as you actually created the music. As in going into the DAW and doing it yourself or inputting the music you recorded and doing touch ups. Whatever the case, it'd be hypnocritical of me to be against it, as someone who has created music using Musescore in the past.
Hell, I don't have a problem with some forms of AI ( not genAI ) in music, considering the latest vocaloid generation ( vocaoid 6 ) have come full circle back into using some form of machine learning to make voicebanks. Also because there are other programs that do similar things, but I can't fully trust a 3rd party voicebank isn't gonna be stealing another persons voice without consent.
I just happened to use that old piano you'd expect to see in a western movie because I had it on my mind.
I think it depends on the extent to which an individual influences the end result. If the paper roll is pre made and the individual is merely placing it in its intended place, then that is different from carefully arranging notes and effects in a DAW.
Indeed, classic. AI isn't good enough for THEIR domain, their expertise, but for stuff they know NOTHING about it's somehow OK. Total lack of introspection and Dunning-Kruger effect.
It's the same thing in game development. Sure AI can actually use most modern game engines now and make an ok-ish game. It's not exactly inspired and without further human touches it's not going to be a saleable product.
Thing is that you can't even use it as a starting point because the code is such a mess that is impossible to use it as a baseline.
Somehow AI has replaced stack overflow as the even more useless advice forum. At least SO had amusingly rude comments.
I’ve been running the Qwen 3.6 MoE model on my gaming laptop and have been using it to critique screenplays lately. It can’t write worth a shit, but it sure can tell me what’s wrong with my own writing.
It pointed out things like this dialog is too wordy and it ruins the joke, this story beat feels “unearned”, this character feels like a “vehicle for jokes”, this line is an “exposition dump”, etc. When I ask it for suggestions on how to fix the problems it points out, its suggestions are all stupid, but when I fix the problems myself, it no longer flags them in follow-up critiques in a new chat session.
Qwen has obviously been trained on a lot of screenplays and writing how-to books. For example, I changed the character names in a classic sitcom script, removed the series and episode title, and it recognized the writing style of the series and then even told me what episode it was. It also gives me the same advice that screenwriting books I’ve read preach, except it can point out specific cases where said principles are not being applied.
It would be better to have a human critic, of course, but finding a human who is skilled at writing and who will take the time to critique your work can be difficult. Your friends also may not give you honest feedback. Qwen will, though. It’s not sycophantic at all from what I’ve seen, and in fact, it ripped my passion project to shreds. After I fixed all the problems it found, though, it ended up being a much better piece of writing, IMO.
I think using a LLM as a tool to improve your own work instead of as a slop generator is the right way to go. I also feel better about running them on my own hardware and using about the same amount of power I’d use if playing a game instead while also retaining control of my data.
I think most creative people who openly use AI say similar things. Even with programming, I don't ask it to code for me - I ask it to review what I wrote.
OOP is just too arrogant and ignorant to even consider this.
LLMs are a useful tool, but not a silver bullet, and if it weren’t for the shitheads overhyping them and plundering the world for profit, we’d likely not be seeing this level of backlash.
Lemmy in particular is big on self-hosting Jellyfin and the like, and running an open weight LLM on a gaming machine you already own is in the same spirit.
I have wondered if I could use AI to write unit tests, it would be worth it because it's only a hobby project and I'm not going to do TDD otherwise. But I'm loathed to actually give the AI companies any money, especially for something that I could technically do myself, even though I won't.
Little children on toy cars on a merry go round, wildly steering in every direction - same energy.
Infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters.
I don't care. This isn't Reddit. I am not on this planet to spend my time complaining about others.
I am here to have fun, and as an artist. I'd rather just enjoy my own journey than worry about somebody else's.
Healthy and well-adjusted 🩵
I appreciate the mindset, but you're not accomplishing anything by telling this to the subscribers of c/fuckai. Just block and move on
Couldn't find one where it doesn't call OP a phony, but didn't look too hard.
was that woman olga tokarczuk?
i dont want to use AI to write cause it trains on anything and it may include some copyrighted elements.
I hate AI just like any normal person should but LLMs are reformulation and bibliographical research tool. If one field could use it right, it is the writing industry.
That doesn't mean it will write for you, of course.
Oh no, not a block! What are they going to do now that this rando doesn't see what they write anymore?!
I think the point is they aren’t actually “writing” anymore.
Two types of writers. Those that want to BE writers. And those who don’t want to write but say they do.
I think "making" AI art is essentially the same as commissioning a painting - you're describing what you want to someone else and they're making it for you (although in this case 'someone' is a kind of highly-optimized plagiarism machine, but same kind of principle.) When it's done, you might "own" the result, but you didn't make it IMO.
But if you're commissioning it, at least an artist was able to pay for something using that money.
If you're writing for fun or as a project with your friends or something, you should do it yourself. If it's your job? Fuck it, give them the bare minimum amount of effort and make them eat your slop. Who cares? If you're writing a TV show you should be assuming the audience is all on their phones anyway, it's all trash and not worth the effort of real work.
trying to think of the past here. nobody told anyone they were crazy for not using a smartphone or using a desktop. it's nuanced but today shilling for AI means shilling for large corporations.
it's too bad this tech is built on social media algos. i'm still interested in seeing its use for offline training data.
nobody told anyone they were crazy for not using a smartphone or using a desktop.
Lol, I can tell you weren't around, because this was an extremely popular sentiment.
i had a flip phone for the longest time before i got a smartphone and it felt more like i wasnt part of the ipod/iphone group. if anything i remember the data plans were low usage and the early adopters just had rich parents.
Only if you went iPhone. Blackberry was great inexpensive competition.
Is it really that crazy?
Professional writing has always been about throwing as many ideas out there until something catches on. You can sit there and draft over and over again, trying to write the perfect story but if it doesn't get picked up then it doesn't get picked up.
AI takes advantage of this. Our world already cared more about fake productivity and quantity more than quality.
If you're an older author then you don't really care. You can probably use your written works that are popular with AI to get a bit lazy as long as you check over everything and slip in some originality here and there. All the while you use your reputation from before AI became popular and tell people it isn't AI.
Meanwhile new authors have to deal with all the AI content that's out there, content that is constantly being made at a rate faster than anything they can put out.
This isn't a defense. This is just me pointing out that this isn't going away on its own.
Edit: After reading the comments I see what the issue is and I'm just really disappointed. Turns out, AI is only bad when it's invading your hobbies. It's apparently okay to cheat by using it for your professional life whenever possible.
Professional writing has always been about throwing as many ideas out there until something catches on.
Jesus fucking Christ.
If I'm wrong, if you think my comment is stupid then why don't you prove it?
I'll happily edit my own comment with sources if you'd like. I think it's common knowledge that most writers don't break out on their first published work though and that even afterwards most authors gain most of their revenue from backlist and back in print titles overall. Actually, I have the sources ready now if you'd like them.
My point was not to say this is a good thing but to point out that there is absolutely an incentive to cheat this way.
A full-speed race to the bottom!
Starting to think about a Neu-Amish movement where we just stop with tech advancements post 2020 and live like it's 2019 again. Shit, I'll give up LTE and 5g to live in a world without social media.
If I need someone to generate slop and feed it to slop-eaters, I'll hire someone to do it so I don't have to be involved with any of them.
Starting to think about a Neu-Amish movement where we just stop with tech advancements post 2020 and live like it’s 2019 again. Shit, I’ll give up LTE and 5g to live in a world without social media.
With the prices of hardware recently, I think we're headed towards re-using old tech for a long time. I'm a professional programmer, and I'm still on my machine from 2018 with no fucking chance of upgrade for the forseeable future. Not even fucking ram. I was going to upgrade to 32gb , but ram prices skyrocketed right when I was about to buy some.
Join us! Your skills can help us wrest back control of modern smart appliances so that they operate with buttons rather than IoT. I'm sure someone in the community will swap you some RAM for your work. I just grabbed a new PC before I saw everything going to crap, and my 2016 machine is still kicking...
This isn’t a defense. This is just me pointing out that this isn’t going away on its own.
Except it totally is going away on its own. Degenerative AI in all its forms is profoundly unprofitable. The whole "AI" sphere out there right now is a circle-jerking, obfuscated Ponzi scheme. The basic problem is unassailable: it costs more to use degenerative AI than anybody is willing to pay for it. So literally every AI company right now is bleeding cash like crazy, and the one AI-adjacent company that is on the books turning record profits is using accounting trickery to make it look like that; one that's predicated on the assumption that 100% of its account receivables will actually pay off.
Protip: none of its account receivables from the AI firms is going to pay off.
I just gotta say, this is the widest gaps I’ve ever seen in non-downvoted and downvoted takes ever in Lemmy. Everyone is either nuanced about AI or 100% against it. For better or worse, I think all of us will have to use it one way or another. In cybersecurity, because the attackers use it and gain speed and exponential capability with it, we have no choice but to use it also (at least as a vulnerability scanning tool). I think we’ll all find ourselves in such a situation, where either our competitors or other workers use it and we have to use it as a tool to keep up. The horse has already left the barn on this one.
Lol, the bubble will burst before the slop machine gets to my line of work.
Same, it can't even do what the idiotic high schoolers I work with who've never had a job before and don't know how to read a clock can do, much less do it better or faster. I'm feeling very secure.
100% secure.
"Nuanced"
looks inside
LLM glazing
Every damn time.
Using it sometimes sure. It's sometimes better than google at giving me answers, and it's great at troubleshooting dumb mistakes (or processing large amounts of code for things like security issues, but I don't do that).
I also have little doubt that ML as a whole will reshape the world much like the WWW did - we do have an awful lot of compute now that could be used for more useful ML applications. But as it's going, I doubt LLM's will go much further. More and more people are seeing past the insane promises and realize they're tools for some specific jobs, particularly once the pricing adjusts the use cases will likely be quite narrow.
How are writers making money these days?
Realistically there is no way to not use ai anymore.
For what and to what end?
Pretty dumb analogy. Musicians have been using computers to automate as much as possible for decades
Pretty dumb analogy. The musicians are still writing the songs & music - all they're automating is the playing of their creations. OP is talking about taking the human out of the creative process itself, not the recitation of the work.
The op only said "writers are crazy if they're not using AI these days". If that means using AI to write your story then yes it's bad. If it means using AI to research your story or outline your story or make a schedule/game plan for writing (in a similar way that musicians use computers to compose the music they otherwise play themselves). Well, that can still be bad but if they still write the words themselves it's definitely different.
I don't disagree that what's being falsely labeled as "AI" could be helpful when used in a judicious manner. The issue is that far too many become too comfortable with it, and start becoming less judicious (a.k.a. "lazy") in its use. In so doing, they start losing the skills needed to think things through for themselves. There have already been multiple reports of doctors and experts in various fields losing their diagnostic and analytic skills due to this effect. Once a majority of the population loses this skill, they become far too easily manipulated into marching to their own doom.
Doesn't seem like you're familiar with the tools available in stuff like Ableton, the most popular DAW, or how the music industry works as a whole. And neither scenario is taking the human out of the creative process
No, I'm not. That said, your response isn't terribly illuminating as to how I might be wrong.
FWIW FL studio is the most popular daw for sure.
ProTools.
OP is. It's not clear that the author she blocked is. "Using AI" doesn't mean "having AI write for you". Plenty of authors just use it as a research aide or a sounding board. Plus, it's a great way to learn which phrases to never use again.
I've upvoted for having the bravery to speak the true possibilities in here, but I would say the odds are kinda strongly against what you suggest.
I'm writing something for for the first time doing exactly these things. It hasn't written one word for me, but it has suggested to me what words could maybe be better words if I can think of those words. (Editing advice, preliminary only, nothing meant to be final)
I really don't understand why they don't market it for these things instead of just writing for you.
The reason they don't market it that way is because the market they're trying to convince are the people that want to replace workers, and pretend this is the next industrial age that puts humans out of work. They want you to think it does all your writing for you, not that it assists you here and there.
That's what makes people invest the hardest, and it's the biggest lie they can sell for the most money. If you don't adopt AI, you'll be like a horse and carriage competing with trains! That's why every dumbass business owner is shoving AI down your throat. They believe there's a risk that you'll implode if you don't adopt it early. You'll stop being competitive.
They ignore the obvious wins we've taken advantage of, where people are like, "huh okay this might give me good advice sometimes if I take it with a grain of salt", and "actually it helped me storyboard my idea and find flaws before I even started writing", and "it actually helped me understand the history of the Ottoman empire and why they were like that, and that history can be reflected accurately in my novel now".
These are the rational use cases which people are discovering it's pretty helpful. But those rational use cases don't prove that it will replace the workers, so it's not sold as a tool. It's being sold as an eventual replacement for the working class. Businesses would be a hell of a lot more skeptical about spending $50k on Claude if they knew it didn't eventually mean laying off $500k in payroll. If it just means their workers are a little more efficient... Well fuck that, that doesn't save money.
It's going to take some time for shit to get normal. Investors will eventually learn they're losing money. Once they bubble bursts, eventually people will learn when it's useful and it'll be a bit more niche.
You could achieve the same thing with a thesaurus without burning the planet to a crisp.
Appreciate it. Also in fairness, I've definitely run into published books written by supposed specialists that are obviously 200 pages of AI prose (probably based on a 10 page essay).
Whenever i see a musician using AI i send them to the mental trash bin as well. Why listen to someone's ai generated spam? And if an electronic producer is making music as mindlessly as spam, whelp to the trash bin it goes! To the spam filter!
If anything ai has made me more wary of music made with software, there were always this kind of middle age pensioner who though they were a musician because they could plug a 4/4 rhythm hm in fruit loops.
ai is multiplying them and making them more annoying, but just as easy to ignore.
Another post from this community makes it to All, and it’s another screenshot of social media where someone says “I observed someone using AI, so I shunned them.”
Sounds like the correct reaction to people using AI. Good observation, no notes.
Shunning is the correct response to cogsuckers.
I'll be stealing that.
CogSuckers!
Oh I love this one
Yeah I don't want to associate with people who cannot think on their own.
Crazy right?
Sounds like you're an AI glazer yourself. The only proper response room a "creative" like this is to ignore anything they do in the future because its not their own work. AI is purely derivative, it has no imagination.
"If you're not using the plagiarism machine to rip off artists without having even experienced them yourself to claim credit as if its your original work, you're crazy"
"Why are people shunning me?"
Are you just providing a text description for accessibility purposes? Thanks!
Grok is this true?
No one forced you to read it or post, you're responsible for your own feed. You can kindly fuck off if you're just coming in here to complain we exist.
Sometimes the universe speaks to us. Take the hint, lol.
If we're gonna embrace black-and-white-only thinking, isn't she a Nazi for being on substack?
If writers use AI to do the writing for them, they're not writers, they're prompters that want credit for "writing" what the AI model they're using is producing.
In the same way, someone who has a piano programmed to play a song can't be proud of having played it themselves, because it wasn't their work that made the piano play.
That's not "black-and-white-only thinking", it's just a reasonable analogy for what a writer "writing" with AI actually is, which isn't a writer.
If we don't call film directors "actors" because their actions partially result in the film being made the way it is, and we don't call people pressing the "play x song" button on an electric piano musicians just for having caused the piano to play with that button, why should we call someone who tells an AI model to write a book for them a writer? These are fundamentally different roles, so we call them what they are. If you're not writing, you're not a writer, you're an AI user. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Except your premise is black and white when there are far more possibilities.
Hey AI, I've looked for 3 hours, and can't find the plans to to this one jail in Ipswitch, Mass in 1750. Can you describe it to me? And what was a typical guard rotation like? Yeah, I'm gonna use it in that one scene in Chapter 4. Oh, sure a list of historical jailbreaks from there and neighboring towns would be grand.
Even setting aside the very real possibility that AI is just going to hand you a series of hallucinations, if you're not willing to immerse yourself in the era by reading primary sources and expanding your knowledge past what you think to ask an LLM, it's going to be an incredibly shallow piece of work.
What the research is showing is that people who use LLMs become increasingly less willing and able to do their own thinking. Soon the idea of sitting down with the weekend reading a book is a nightmare compared to having an LLM spoonfeed you answers while it sucks your cock about all your insightful questions.
Brain rot is real.
The author can, you know, imagine what it was and write that. Using AI in your exampl3 may give you an a curate answer, but how do you kmow if you have no other sources to verify its output? How do you know you're not getting a hallucination when it can't find the into either?
Sometimes it does provide sources, you know. I've also had AI find me TV show clips I knew existed, but Google pretended I imagined even though I could go to the actual episode and watch said clip, and whadaya know someone out of 11 billion people on planet fucking Earth did actually make, but I don't know I guess Google saw a butterfly before actually reaching it.
"AI rox cause it dpesnt chase vutterflies" Get the fuck outta hers, it just makes ahit up wo often thwt its completely unreliable. Only hacks use it.
I like the way you type. Is there a reason behind it?
Really poor vision and ADHD?
I was thinking three fingers of whiskey, lol.
Well, I am usually at least a little high.
Of course. I don't trust anyone who's well adjusted enough to raw dog whatever the fuck this society is.
Weed became legal here in 2021, and I didn't try it until then. I honestly don't know how I could have survived what's happening here without jt.
I was prescribed it, before it became legal. It can definitely help with some medical issues. Weed is tight.
A good lemony saliva can hel0 my ADHD as well as adderall.
Hell yeah. A good heavy indicia helps with my PTSD.
.... What?
Okay, in this case the action in question is not writing, it's researching.
If you try to research a topic for three hours and then ask AI... where do you think it's getting the information? From the Ipswich Jailhouse basement? No, it's making them up out of whole cloth and now the book that you wanted to give a historical grounding is at best pure fiction and at worst active misinformation.
Yeah, unless it finally gives a verifiable source that Google wouldn't because it's turned to dogshit, or the records exist, but aren't easily accessible. Or unless you're just writing fiction anyway, and some drawn conclusions from other historical sources is fine.
But I'm sure now you'll tell me why it's still slop if the info is verified. Or why someone sitting down to write a little story he thought of should have access to notes actual historians with professional resources spend years gathering.
unless it finally gives a verifiable source
lol
What?
I’m doubting the claim that ai will eventually give verifiable sources.
Oh, you are just such a tolerant person, seeing nuances in every AI-slop. A real human bean.
And a real hero.
Nope.