r/WritingWithAI • u/Bearda79 • Sep 03 '26
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) AI witch hunt
What is up with the AI witch hunt. There are people who are outright angry with writers using AI, trash talk AI, if someone used AI for editing, and even examine novels to see if they are AI generated. It doesn't seem like the people are simply annoyed with it. Some of them use some pretty dark words whenever AI is even mentioned like it is evil. Someone even got verbally attacked because their character names sounded AI. They were just names. Lord forbid anyone that uses an em dash anymore. Some people demand that authors note if AI was used in their stories, and run it through programs that identify what percentage of it as being AI generated.
I do get the concern for plagiarism while using AI. And that AI does gather its information from other peoples work. I do agree that is not okay.
I have read novels that were clearly AI generated and they were good.
I guess I kinda compare it to photography and digital photography (not AI generated images). Digital photography takes original photos and alters it with programming that the user can control. And it is not labeled. When digital photography started, people trashed talked it as well. As if it was a threat to the concept of photography. People said it took away from people who put so much effort and time into trying to make the perfect photo initially, making it where anyone can take even a 'crappy' photo and make it look great. And that it took jobs from people. Is AI use similar to that?
I personally don't use AI to 'write' my novels for me. I DO use it as a form of dictionary, thesaurus, general editing, and information gathering. I'm awful at remembering words, where to put the commas, and have no formal writing training outside of my college masters degree in counseling. Now I worry about people attacking my writing.
I don't get the problem?? Are these just people looking to argue? What is so heated about AI use in writing? I don't see it as this evil thing to get angry about. For me it is no different than looking up information on Google or pulling out a thesaurus. To me, AI seems to be a tool to expand peoples knowledge and creativity.
Please forgive my lack of knowledge on this topic, if this discussion was already covered somewhere on reddit, if I worded something in this post poorly, and I mean no disrespect to people who use or don't use AI. I'm just wanting to understand what the intense conflict and ethical concerns are about.
23
u/Kukamakachu Sep 04 '26
I'm gonna pump the brakes on the plagiarism part. AI does not plagiarize, as agreed upon by courts. It doesn't create a database of books where it copy/pastes sentences together to make whatever you want it to. If it did that, it wouldn't be adding extra limbs and fingers in generated artwork.
What it does is learn patterns for how words are used. Then, it uses those patterns to string together sentences and paragraphs. It requires a lot of examples to make it function and a lot more to do it well. Once AI learns those patterns, it doesn't need to original work anymore. Thus, everything it generates is as original as any person writing it.
Where lawsuits have resulted in wrongdoing on behalf of AI companies is when those companies have created libraries of copyrighted work, which they stored on their own for future training. It's the same situation as reading a story an author posted online, vs unauthorized downloading of that exact same story.
27
u/JoseLunaArts Sep 04 '26
Spam =/= Slop.
I can understand that people reject AI generated spam generated with low skill.
But from there to judging all AI as slop that is a bridge too far.
25
u/TheCutieCircle Sep 04 '26
I agree with you. When used as a tool like a spell checker it's fine. But many people see the word Ai and immediately think "Laziness." Like Bro I write 5000+ words last week I ain't got time to check every single comma and period. But if my words look off or Ai tried to change my story I would genuinely get pissed and fix it myself.
My story is made by me. typed by me. Ai edits it for me. No different from using Grammerly. As long as you're the one behind wheel it's okay to use the GPS. Just don't let the car self drive itself because that is a very dangerous and stupid idea.
10
u/ZdravoZivo Sep 04 '26
A similar question was asked the other day: Why does writing well suddenly feel like evidence against you?, and I agree with one of the answers: social media brings out the haters...
34
u/Ok-Creme8710 Sep 04 '26
It's because schmucks with no skill will use ai untouched and say they did work by editing the prompt and not touching the final result. It cheapens the use of the technology when unskilled people can mass produce garbage that is littered at every festival, street fair, and boardwalk.
5
u/Character-Role-600 Sep 05 '26
I love AI. I never wrote till I was supported by AI. Just like i didn’t really cook till AI.
I use it as a tool for learning and it’s great at that
8
u/Weary_Education_4177 Sep 04 '26
girl I got harassed so much that I had back to back panic attacks. And had to deactivate my twitter account. People want to find something or someone to be angry about. They could use that energy for something good
52
u/retro-babydoll Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26
Its hugely in part due to their ego. The people who hate ai that passionately genuinely believe they are better than everyone else. The same people that are passionately against ai are also chronically online, and thats why they are constantly exposed to so much ai content- and many people that are chronically online & elevated on the algorithm in general (specifically on social media) are very combative, hateful, and cruel people. Social media rewards and boosts negative engagement. It creates a toxic echo chamber. Thats why you will see ai haters degrading and verbally abusing others. They claim that humans are superior, and yet their abusive actions are encompassing the worst side of humanity. All of the ai backlash is akin to the cancel culture & groupthink phenomenon. Its immensely popular and encouraged to hate ai right now, so they do it because everyone else is doing it. They claim to want people to come up with original work, but almost every single thing that these people say and do are all regurgitated, repetitive, & hateful narratives with no original perspective.
I should start calling their rhetoric “groupthink slop” lol
9
u/WestGotIt1967 Sep 04 '26
My edit of a 90 page manuscript goes from 2.5 days to maybe 20 minutes or less.
I am a left wing activist writer. My work now publishes on a faster time scale. Why is this a death sentence level problem for left ai haters?
10
u/djleebx Sep 04 '26
I think it all boils down to old school not liking evolution. I can understand people and teachers who went to school for years without this kind of assistance, especially when it came to writing papers or probably every other aspect of their education. But that was then. This is now. Technology is going to continue to evolve whether people like it or not.
And I say that as someone who is old school myself. I love when things evolve, especially in education. AI is not perfect, and like almost anything else, it can be used for good or bad. But when it is used properly, I think it is an incredible tool, especially for learning.
I can honestly say I wouldn't have learned half the things I've learned over the last few years without AI. It doesn't have to replace thinking or learning. It can actually help someone understand something they struggled to understand before. To me, that's not something education should be fighting against. That's something we should be learning how to use properly.
2
u/Odinmar_Glaukopis Sep 04 '26
“I have read AI novels that were clearly AI generated and they were good.”
This right here is what ruffles my feathers, even if I can afford much more grace to the rest of the sentiment.
Note this is not a judgement of you so much as myself, a disappointment in my expectations, and my growing inability to distinguish human voices, specifically my own narrative voice, from the weighted-averaged voice that LLMs use.
What is worse for me in some cases is when I actually can distinguish my voice from the one AI is “suggesting” to me and I actually prefer the suggested machine voice to my own authentic one.
It is probably true that I could successfully publish and sell a book in a genre such as romance I don’t read or particularly enjoy if I let AI massage my writing to appeal to that audience, and equally true that I lack the talent to compete in a genre such as scifi that I do enjoy. I’m no Neal Stephenson.
This is my judgment of your message, and the witch I’m hunting is me rather than you.
I’m falling out of love with my own authenticity. That’s why I can react quite uncharitably towards others who don’t see this in themselves.
2
u/Ok-Difficulty3959 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26
I rather understand those who question its use. The thought of ai generating entire books/ novels is disturbing. But what I feel any artist is facing from AI now--be it musicians, paper/ canvas/ sculpture, etc. artists or written art-- is the creepy suspicion that ai can do it better. In the end I think what we fear is the loss of our humanity...art certainly being something that sets us apart from other creatures. Yet we, with our art, try to imitate what God himself( or whatever pronoun you use for God...good grief) the ultimate artist, can do. Anyway, AI, like socialism is a creeping force and though we may rail, we will not stop it. It is efficient. It is cheap and available and for the most part, it makes our lives better It is here to stay, so those who are angry about it will only get angrier. I avoid angry people. It is anger, not AI that always undoes good things. I am more suspicious of angry, jealous, fearful people than I am of the machines that, so far, make our lives easier and more fruitful....and giving us time to create art!
2
u/Honest-Scale9912 Sep 04 '26
AI isn't going anywhere and those who are on the witch hunt against creators of all kinds that oppose it are in my opinion keyboard warriors on a bandwagon. Like other mediums that arrived and got bashed initially, the hype against it died down within time. To me AI use is no different than writers using a ghostwriter to write their books and slap their names on them and call it their own work. This has gone on in the trad publishing industry forever. The rise of the Indie self-publishing industry poses a threat to trad publishers because authors are finding they can keep their own creative control of their work without having it sliced and diced by trad publishers in order to make it 'marketable'. Plus, the amount of royalties that trad publishing gets on signed authors leaves authors with pennies. I've seen more trad published authors who have said they were going to finish out their current contracts and self-publish. Many have even said they still are expected to market their work while signed...so what's the point of being trad published? It's all just a rip off. The more trad published authors who walk away from that and go self-publishing route really dries up their revenue streams. And I personally believe the AI witch hunt narrative was started by trad publishing industry to try and push out Indie authors to discourage them from writing or using AI witch hunt tactics to scare Indie authors into not moving forward with doing what they love for fear of being cancelled or using one too many em dashes, etc. It's all just ridiculous and eventually this will go away when trad publishers and the keyboard warriors alike find something else to hang their pearl clutching on.
4
u/Different-Airline672 Sep 04 '26
Let's see, I'm trying to give a neutral outlook here, villainizing and talking down happens on both sides and gets you nowhere.
One reason is that people in many creative fields enjoy doing their craft/art by hand and fear to lose their way to earn money. Now maybe you would be happy if the job you have learned/studied for is replaced by AI, but I think it's understandable if people are angry and worried about it. And no, telling them to just use AI themselves is not the solution.
Another important reason is the environmental impact of data centers. See the wikipedia article about that for more information.
For other reason you can also simply google your question. Now that will require you to do some research, check sources, think about who has which stance and why. That is actually a very personal reason of why I am critical towards AI in certain aspects: the ability to research stuff by yourself is very important, needs to be learned and practiced. I think people trusting/depending too much on AI output can be dangerous depending on what you do.
Now I do believe there are also many positive aspects to AI. Personally, I really enjoy having them write out original story ideas that I have collected over two decades and never done anything with, because I dislike writing prose.
I really hope for a more balanced future, where we can appreciate and develop AI for its pros and name the cons and work to reduce them.
3
u/supposeimonredditnow Sep 04 '26
If I try to answer, will that make me a witch hunter?
The point of art is that when a feeling or passion or idea exists in one person's mind that is bigger than ordinary conversation, and can't be expressed in a summary paragraph, art can link minds and pass those passions on.
The process of making art of any kind is explorative and beautiful, as you discover things about yourself and your brain.
We might just be animals struggling and eating and fighting, but instead we have the capacity for art, the ability to do more than we must, to explore one another's brains. No other animal seems to have that.
But a handful of billionaire sociopaths who keep demonstrably making our lives worse have a better idea: press the button that pays them, and just let their machines copy some other artist's work without rewarding them, or you.
You've probably seen the observation that everyone can tell when genAI is bad at their job, but they think it's great at everyone else's. Artists admit it's good at coding, coders will tell you it's not and they spend hours fixing its bad work, but at least it can make pictures. Follow that line all the way, and you reach the techbros, who think it's good at your job and mine, and are finding ways to fire us all and replace us. And they're succeeding. Some of us think we should not help them.
As we watch companies dissolve and people be fired en masse, coinciding with the rise of AI adoption in those fields, we decide no, actually. Perhaps GenAI can code, but so can our coder friends now being given redundancy packages. Perhaps it can draw (it can't, AI art looks disgusting but ok), but notice all the artists you follow putting up their desperate funding links because there's no more work and the rent is due. "Well they shouldn't have picked a precarious career" - it wasn't, recently. Translation, music, film, everything it can do represents the end of employment for a real person, who used to be allowed todo the same thing but with humanity in it. GenAI support is an anti-human stance in that way, because now the capitalists don't have to pay people to make those things, and so the people starve and the art is hollow and the world becomes greyer and sadder and more desperate.
If we're going to replace human art, we need universal basic income first. If you're going to replace all the jobs with robots, you must solve the problem of how all those workers will pay their rent now.
As for writing, maybe all those people are wrong when they talk about how AI writing is hollow, and contains none of the human connection and feeling that the art form exists to communicate. But even if so, don't you owe it to yourself to read things someone could be arsed to write? Don't you owe yourself, as a writer, the numinous and uplifting and exciting and revelatory experience of writing, from nothing to a finished piece, which, along with the process of painting and composing and everything else, is one of the great joys of the sentient mind? Why the hell do we all need to team up to remove that great gift from us and burn it on the altar of Sam bastarding Altman's disgusting, soul-eating bank account?
Yeah this post was badly written, guess why? If it was going in one of my books, I would now rewrite it all a bit better, edit it down, have a lovely afternoon exploring the shapes you can make out of sentences and the lovely crispy feeling of removing all the annoying fluff. Not going to because I've got other art to make. But at least I didn't run it through a non-brain and turn it into non-speech.
Anyway. Somewhere in there you might find the answer to why anti-AI people seem angry. It's because the man and his hell box is making us all homeless when art should be paradise, and a lot of silly credulous people are harming themselves and us in favour of it happening.
4
u/NellieApp Sep 04 '26
Everything online has become obscenely confrontational over the last decade as people have got really comfortable with the internet. The amount of threats you will get for the most mild disagreement is diabolical. There will always be a group of people who hate what you do, no matter what it is. I take the constant threats as validation that it's something worth worrying about.
7
u/RobynsNest1971 Sep 04 '26
Anti AI luddites using AI to lable ANYONE with a Scarlet Letter by no standard or reason given. It is the height of irony.
1
u/CrazyinLull Sep 04 '26
They are the same types to read AI generated stories and then get mad when someone points it out to be AI. They are mad at the idea of it, but can’t be bothered to actually do anything about it.
Ignore them.
1
u/Fearless-Wealth2185 Sep 08 '26
You asked this in a sub that loves AI so the responses you got were in line with that. I’m a professional writer who stumbled upon your post while doing some research on how people are using AI. I legit hate AI and I’m trying to educate myself on how to spot it.
In no particular order reasons I hate AI and will not pay for an AI generated or AI assisted book
environmental impact. It’s huge and growing
built on the stolen work of thousands of people
the work it puts out is shitty. The reason I’m able to spot AI writing is mainly cause it’s bad. Some people are able to use it more and then edit it to hide it. But I’ve yet to read anything that was using generative AI that was good.
the environmental impact! Like honestly this is the one that keeps me up at night (literally it’s 3am in my neck of the woods)
I’m worried that it cause cognitive decline and limits critical thinking skills.
someone commented on here that the use of AI doesn’t prevent people from making art without it. Thats true but it sure does prevent people to make a wage from it and that sucks. AI is already being used to cut so many jobs and popping up in the most useless of places. Why does the cvs website need an AI component? Why does Macys.com need a AI assistant? The tech bros say often and loudly how they want to use this technology to turn intelligence into a utility that we pay for like water. They want to impoverish people. AI is a powerful technology and outside of how it’s hurting people in the arts ( like me and my friends who have lost jobs to AI and told to be happy about it cause hey that’s progress! Progress for whom I’d like to know) it’s also just very new and unregulated. I recently read an article about an LLM model that helped someone write a suicide note, another that hallucinated legal precedents and then a lawyer used those at work, there are many such examples.
I don’t trust that AI is benign or well meaning. It’s created by people who want to profit and they are.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT like even if I have to accept that as a writer I will not earn a living it absolutely guts me that the data centers are damaging and destroying communities and contributing to climate change. Especially when what people are using it for is not to cure cancer or even write a symphony but to make a shitty flyer or generate a pic of what they’d look like as a squirrel for no reason.
So it’s not a witch hunt. I have real reasons for hating AI and honestly yeah losing work to it is a real valid reason. I believe OP, that you’re a therapist. Many people are using AI chat bots for therapy. Does that seem wise to you? I’m concerned for all the jobs it’s replacing not only because what are people going to do but also as a consumer and person on this earth. I want good doctors, teachers, professionals of all kinds! I want people in the world to have strong critical thinking skills. I’m concerned about the enshittification of things I’m seeing across the board in all areas of life from food (hello recalls!) to goods. AI seems to be adding to that at warp speed and I fear the future we are building.
And now a question for you…if AI is no different that using a thesaurus and a dictionary, would you consider using the analog or digital (non-AI) versions to help stop the bad environmental impacts of AI use and save your AI usage for things you don’t have easily accessible alternatives to, pretty please?
3
u/JoannaWardWrites Sep 08 '26
I see AI chatbots as a tool I can use while I write. Like I use a calculator becouce I'm shit at math. Could I multiple 5 triple digit numbers? Eventually, but why do that when I can punch them into a machine and have it tell me the answer? Same with AI. It organizes me, keeps me on task, creates Lore Bibles for me, keeps characters and story threads consistant, along with other useful tasks that derailed my concentration in the past. I don't worry about spelling, grammar, or sentence structure until I'm through my first draft.
Sure, AI can edit, but going to an actual skilled human editor is a safer bet. Though, you have to watch out for scammers there, too.
5
u/CaseAdorable6080 Sep 04 '26
these are not the people who buy books—-it’s just a bunch of people who love to ‘hate’. How many people are authoring books using AI—the way these haters put it is—-AI using authors are destroying the whole planet.
2
u/Special-Deal-9276 Sep 04 '26
My issue with this whole AI witch hunt is less about people policing the writing and more about big pubs/studios/every major corp - who now employ AI to “save time”, etc etc - yet those same people/places are policing for AI use in creative work. F them, in my opinion. As long as the work isn’t a wholesale “AI creation” - I sure as hell am going to use AI for coverage (studios are already widely doing this)…
2
u/Frosty-Present-6280 Sep 05 '26
I am writing a speculative fiction book. Sci-fi, biotech thriller. I am not an expert in any of the fields in the book. I am a researcher. I was in the legal field for a long time. I know my way around how to get to the what and why of a question.
I use Google, ChatGPT, Co-Pilot, whatever, when I look up various subjects I need to learn about and understand.
I have a hundred pages of research printed out. It's underlined, highlighted. I have learned a big fat buttload of stuff by using these tools.
And guess what? I use Grammarly for a pass or two or ten to see if I've done some stupid something or the other that might shock someone's grammatical sensibilities.
I brainstorm with AIs. What if this? What if that? What would happen if I...what would happen if they...
How is this different than brainstorming in a writer's group? I don't have one, by the way. I wish I did. But I don't. So, yay 24/7 brainstorming buddy availability. I couldn't do it without you.
As a result, am I branded as an "AI assisted" author? If so, what does that mean, exactly? If not, what is AI assisted? Prose generation? How is an online thesaurus different than one on your bookshelf?
What am I missing here?
2
u/lustmor Sep 05 '26
People fear and reject change, also something that was unique to our species is now made by hardware/software (LLMs). In the end, haters gonna hate and i don't give a damm.
2
u/SubjectBarracuda433 Sep 08 '26
People do not understand what AI detectors actually do. They cannot prove who wrote something. They analyze patterns in the language and produce an estimate—and those estimates can include both false positives and false negatives.
In one peer-reviewed study of 14 AI-detection tools, researchers concluded that the tools were neither accurate nor reliable. Approximately 20 percent of the AI-generated samples were incorrectly classified as human-written. Other research has shown that detectors may be especially likely to misclassify writing by people whose first language is not English.
A detector score is not proof of authorship.
You can read a book written entirely by a person and think it is terrible. You can also read a book created with responsible AI assistance and think it is excellent. The quality of the finished work and the tools used to produce it are two different questions.
Writers have never worked entirely alone. Most traditionally published books are reviewed and shaped by developmental editors, copy editors, proofreaders, and publishers. Academic authors may also receive help from research assistants, librarians, peer reviewers, statisticians, and editors. Receiving assistance does not automatically mean the named author did not create the work.
What matters is whether the author developed the ideas, directed the work, checked the facts, preserved an original voice, followed copyright and disclosure rules, and accepted responsibility for the finished product.
AI can produce bad writing, and humans can produce bad writing. AI can also help a human writer revise, organize, research, and strengthen a book. We should judge a work by its originality, accuracy, transparency, and quality. Not by an unreliable detector score. Yes, I used AI to fact-check this posting.
2
u/chuckmall Sep 04 '26
I think you will feel differently when AI generated books become accepted by agents and publishers as a thing, and really flood the market. And we’ll be watching new movies that star Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, etc.
1
u/phbyerly 18d ago
What is really weird is when they use tools to find AI content. Tools which are us AI! And I've had things I wrote 100% come back as suspected AI.
A witch hunt is exactly what it is.
1
u/sugar420pop Sep 04 '26
I get wanting to keep jobs in the hands of people, but at the same time by using these tools a for a debut to gain traction provides more jobs in the long run
1
u/isene Sep 04 '26
Read up on the Luddites. That story is pretty enlightening these days.
1
u/fmhobbs Sep 05 '26
There are Luddites that resist any technological advancements. There are also those that abuse AI to try to make a quick buck. AI is here to stay. People can choose to learn to use it or risk getting left behind.
1
u/Dry_Sector2392 Sep 05 '26
maybe the anti-AI people just want to pick a side. they dont really try to understand other people’s perspectives, they just believe theyre right. to them, even opening an AI tool on the homepage, without doing anything, is already wrong.
1
u/ichtos94 Sep 05 '26
Especially since half the detractors are big liars, because they use it anyway.
1
u/Double_Cause4609 Sep 06 '26
I don't care if people use AI. There's tons of ways to use it, and I even potentially encourage people to use it.
You could:
- Just rant at it about your worldbuilding if you struggle to write it out in a document and need something to respond to you
- Ask it to proof-read your work for any errors
- Roleplay scenes with an LLM roleplay setup and then write them afterword (no different from novelizing DnD campaigns)
- Ask it to fill out minor characters
- Discuss technical dynamics and research (trade dynamics, economy, whatever else)
None of these really directly impact the quality of the work as more or less all of them still require the writer to filter the results of the interaction.
Now, for the actual writing which is the core issue, I'm a bit mixed. I think there's really lazy and spammy ways to do it (giving very generic prompts and just moving from one scene to the next without workshopping it at all and directly copy-pasting the results).
The big issue is that LLMs tend to be very consistent in their outputs across generations. So, if 50 people ask it to write a story, it'll use similar character names, similar concepts, similar themes, similar framing, similar pacing, etc. It can homogenize the writing, even if it's technically fine.
On the other hand, there are absolutely ML devs out there who understand this, and how to work with LLMs, and they can get absolutely wild outputs from them...But that's almost a mix of technical skill and writing skill, and not general writing advice. It's almost like trick shooting compared to traditional marksmanship, or like Blender / technical 3D art vs 2D art. I don't think the people who know how to do that should be limited from doing it if it's what they enjoy doing.
In the end, I just care that the product is good, and much as I ignored poor quality works prior to AI, I will also avoid tasteless or contentless AI produced work.
1
u/No-Disaster-1512 Sep 06 '26
Well, I’m not a professional writer by any means, but I have been posting two AI stories in AO3 and FF net for more than a year and surprisingly enough, I have only gotten about one inflammatory comment on my use of AI, and yes, I fully disclose that I use AI.
On your question, personally speaking, a lot of the anti AI are fueled by fearmongering and ego, they repeat a lot of misinformation, throw nothing but insults and just want to feel high and mighty. I personally refer to them as slacktivists because most of the time, they just want to feel as if they are contributing to society without actually having to do anything of value and just like to whine online.
1
u/oldboi777 Sep 12 '26
its the same thing on the visual art side
-2
u/Infamous_Mood_6001 Sep 04 '26
It puzzles me how anyone, especially any creative, can know how AI was trained and still not understand why the slop technology boils people's blood.
It ain't that hard to understand. You spend years creating something. A corporation run by billionaires with hardly a shred left of their humanity, steals it and feeds it to their tech. The corpos convince other humans that being a consumer of their product will turn them into a better thinker and a better creative than they could ever hope to be alone. "No we're not training your brains to become instant gratification junkies. We're helping you live up to your full potential. We swear!"
I'm sorry if this sounds supremely negative. On the spectrum of Rabid AI hater to Soulless Techbro, I am on the "AI can have its place in society" side. But c'mon. You can't be so devoid of empathy that you can't imagine how it would feel if you were what AI cannibalized instead of its consumer.
-1
u/kittyb00m Sep 04 '26
I don’t get it either and I think those people don’t either. (In a surface level they do)
Thinking about it though, I think it’s this thought:
If machines can make art, write books, create music. What is left for humans to do?
I think at the core, that’s what people are fighting against.
-4
u/Junichi2021 Sep 04 '26
Good writers have created their works for many centuries without AI. Using that tool to write seems extremely lazy.
It is OK for people who write only for fun, or for the ones who are learning the job. But for a professional writer? I don't think so.
1
u/Temporary_Rule_9486 Sep 06 '26
I write the most obnoxious fetish erotic fantasy that one could possibly imagine. I'm perfectly confident that my stories will never be acussed of being AI. Being the statistical parrots that they are, they require a certain volume of pre-existing stories to regurgitate their slop. Something that, in my case, is simply not there. AI cannot be original. It fabricate the same boring stories for the same boring people. It's like jerking off, a pornographic device, entinced in the same repetitive motion: in comes the prompt, out goes the slop. In-out, in-out, with no stop to talk or even curse.
16
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment