AI generated stories

let's make this simple. if you submit an AI story and i catch it, which i will, eventually, i will personally fuck you up. see? simple.

on a serious note, don't do it for all the reasons stated above. also, because every time an AI story is submitted, someone, somewhere, kicks a kitten. don't be responsible for kittens being kicked. KITTENS, people!

Spotting AI images is oddly similar to checking if someone is a creature of the fae. Count their fingers, count their toes, do their knees bend the right way, do their teeth look human, are their feet facing forward….

Quote by RowanThorn
Count their fingers, count their toes, do their knees bend the right way...

... is their ass on the correct side of their body 🤣

Sometimes it makes some hilarious fails.

Quote by WannabeWordsmith

... is their ass on the correct side of their body 🤣

Sometimes it makes some hilarious fails.

I find they are improving, though. Here's the cover image for latest SS piece. It's not Boris Vallejo quality or anything, but a step up from the humans I was getting when I first started using AI. Her right hand is a mess but that's about it. It still does weird things though. I originally tried to generate an image of the male protagonist but it kept insisting that one holds a sword by the quillons rather than the handle.

Quote by sprite

let's make this simple. if you submit an AI story and i catch it, which i will, eventually, i will personally fuck you up. see? simple.

on a serious note, don't do it for all the reasons stated above. also, because every time an AI story is submitted, someone, somewhere, kicks a kitten. don't be responsible for kittens being kicked. KITTENS, people!

Oh no.. someone used AI

I have wondered about this - AI. I love to write, and my passion is art. From what I have read, AI uses everything around it to then 'create'. It is not creation; it is as derivative as anyone else seeking to emulate but faster at doing it, and the computer is the only medium. Is it better than what a human can create? On a computer, maybe, and this is a rule of averages.

When I see a robot painting with a palette knife, using a palette of infinite colour that it mixed itself, and they show the same diligence, the hours of agonising over composition and making mistakes that need correcting - flawlessly. Then, that is true intelligence. The same with writing, and I am a novice. No one tells me what to write. AI needs human input in the same way I hold a brush or knife.

Yes, it is cheating, it is the theft of intelligence and the human spirit. Ban them and burn them with fire. 😜

Honestly, I write because I enjoy it and if people enjoy my stories, that's a bonus. I don't understand why someone would go to the trouble of submitting stories they didn't write.

Quote by MC1982
Honestly, I write because I enjoy it and if people enjoy my stories, that's a bonus. I don't understand why someone would go to the trouble of submitting stories they didn't write.

I agree with you MC, but you know there are writers who just crank out the same old story over and over which I'm guessing is a bid for recognition. Is plagiarizing yourself a thing? If so, there are plenty here who do it. No, they're not stealing someone else's work, but they're not creating something original either.

As far as AI writing is concerned it will get better and recognizing it will get harder. I've read that schools add requirements to the assignment to make it almost impossible to use - like asking for 5 cited references - but they'll find a way to get past that. I tried it once just to see how it would do, asking it to write an essay on the beauty of a Rickenbacker 360 guitar (I have two and many other guitars). I was amazed at what it produced in 10 seconds, and not just a generic piece on guitars in general. It specifically mentioned things that are unique both to Rickenbacker and the model 360.

I'm afraid we're at the mercy of honesty here, although for the time being AI might be recognizable similar to Chinese instructions interpreted to English.

I know a lot of creatives who use AI as a starting point. But you have to adapt and rewrite in your own voice and recognise how sterile it can sound. The issue with students at present is they just get AI to create and hand it in unchanged.

We are at a terrifying junction where AI farms everything published and reworks. Not just literature but art, film, photography… it’s a scary time to be a creative.

I understand the push-back from creatives about stealing their work, but let's get real - who wasn't trained on the examples of other artists? Whose style is totally and completely all their own without input or influence from anyone else? I call bullshit. There are plenty of human artists whose work is completely derivative, producing imitations and composites of what has already been produced by those with more imagination and talent. The line between originality and outright thievery isn't as clear as we'd like it to be, and for better or worse, AI art has waded right into that no-man's land and set up shop. But, if we're honest, most of us are right there with it. The issue is less about the use of the source material to train on, in my mind, and more about the devaluation of the craft of writing, as AI's massive output is likely to crowd out the productions of those of us who still do it the good old fashioned way - like bespoke tailors have had to compete with the mass production of fast-fashion since industrialization became a thing.

Quote by MC1982

Honestly, I write because I enjoy it and if people enjoy my stories, that's a bonus. I don't understand why someone would go to the trouble of submitting stories they didn't write.

Yes, this!^ I think a lot of people weirdly get distracted by the success of their story, which is generally interpreted as 'views' and 'likes' and 'comments,' but all that shit comes afterwards and is largely outside of our control as authors. But the real reward of writing for me is in the process - in sitting down at the computer and exploring the contents of my mind, arranging whatever I find into meaningful shapes and patterns, and then polishing it all until it shines and I feel some sense of pride in what I produced. The work itself is the point and the pleasure for me.

Quote by deviantsusie

The issue with students at present is they just get AI to create and hand it in unchanged.

As a parent, I can tell you this is very quickly changing in the academic world. Many teachers and profs I’m aware of are now getting ahead of the game not by discouraging students from using genAI to produce an initial draft of their work, but by requiring them to go over and above the standard drivel spewed out by GPT. That means asking the AI better questions, fine-tuning the output with added content of their own and doing a lot of fact checking. This is a pretty big change from where most of them were eight months ago. What’s happening in schools doesn’t help artists, of course, sadly.

I think an AI future is one that is inevitable, which is why I want to invest some time poking around regardless.

Do I think that the best stories will still be written by humans? Absolutely! Humans have specific voices, and you can feel through the writing a lot of times their connection to their characters and ideas. However, I do agree with some of the posters' above, who talk about (1) how some writing is pretty crappy lol and (2) that as humans we are influenced by other people's writing and that is remixing too (just not algorithmic).

I see there will be co-existence. Maybe the sad part is the basic writing will be taken over by AI and humans who aren't that good won't make as much money there. But people who write well or who readers really like will still have fans

Quote by deviantsusie

Software for catching AI in academic work is very hit and miss. Turnitin for example which is used to catch plagiarism has developed anAI catcher but a lot of universities aren’t using it as it gives very poor returns and isn’t trustworthy yet.

Turnitin also picks up the use of Grammarly as AI generated content which makes it pretty much obsolete here since I’m sure that app is well utilised by a lot of the authors on Lush.

TurnItIn is also easy to misconfigure and generate tonnes of false positives, e.g. when basing your work on someone else's research from which you've quoted, or it thinking you've plagiarized your references section because you've referenced exactly the same texts as millions of other people.

When publishing on Amazon now, there's a radio button you have to select to declare if you used AI software to write your book. So they can 'collect information about the use of machine tools in creating content'. To what end, I'm not sure.

So called "AI" generators are very good at churning out content that's the same as everyone else's, because that's all they have to go on: a huge body of already published work to steal from, tweak and pretend it's new.

It's even more hilarious when asking it to generate product or service blurb for a company: it spits out the same meaningless platitudes and drivel that almost every lazy copywriter has ever written on the web or copied from other websites. Again, because that's all it can do. It's not machine learning, it's machine regurgitation.

As for Grammarly being classed as AI, that's an intriguing classification given it's likely crowdsourced data that's used to make its largely piss-poor suggestions. Anyone who blindly goes through and clicks Yes to everything it suggests will, at best, have their work sandblasted to sound like everyone else's (as if an overbearing editor made the voice of your book sound like theirs) and, at worst, it'll ironically contain grammatical errors or awkward sentence constructs because it hasn't understood your intent.

I appreciate it can be helpful as a fallback to some, but I'm glad to have deleted that bag of shite off my devices!

Quote by WannabeWordsmith
As for Grammarly being classed as AI, that's an intriguing classification given it's likely crowdsourced data that's used to make its largely piss-poor suggestions.

WW, I agree with you about taking all of Grammarly's suggestions. I use it mainly for comma use which I just can't seem to get 100%. I did get a notice from Grammarly that they were including some kind of AI component in their tool. Not interested in using it, I haven't looked for it and it might very well require an upgraded subscription.

Quote by 2bespanked

WW, I agree with you about taking all of Grammarly's suggestions. I use it mainly for comma use which I just can't seem to get 100%. I did get a notice from Grammarly that they were including some kind of AI component in their tool. Not interested in using it, I haven't looked for it and it might very well require an upgraded subscription.

I'm finding that QuillBot's free online grammar checker to be more accurate with punctuation than the paid version of Grammarly. There are other features of QuillBot that I'm not interested in using, but I have found it does a great job with commas, semicolons, and em dashes.

I’ve watched too many SciFi movies. AI scares the shit out of me. I will never look at it. I am of the mind that what abilities we don’t use, we lose, so I’m against cars that drive for me, software that writes and draws for me, etc. Even those Robot vacuums scare me. 😱

If anyone turns up at my door and asks if Sarah Connor lives here, I say, "Nah mate, next town over."

Quote by KimmiBeGood

I’ve watched too many SciFi movies. AI scares the shit out of me. I will never look at it. I am of the mind that what abilities we don’t use, we lose, so I’m against cars that drive for me, software that writes and draws for me, etc. Even those Robot vacuums scare me. 😱

We tried one of those Roombas, and the damn thing kept getting stuck under my brother's bed. So much for being a "smart" vacuum! We have mostly tile anyway, so we gave it to our daughter. 🤣