Hiccupx:
Yes, we do allow authors of premium stories to use AI, since it's just another tool in the box, like spelling or grammar checkers.
LoraDayton:
Grammar and spellcheck already existed long before mass-market access to AI.
AI isn't a grammar tool. It can only function by scraping existing writing created by other humans. Even if you clean it up after, it is still theft. It's not reinterpretation or meta or research. AI is theft of work. AI cannot exist without a reserve of existing material. That's literally how it works.
You're absolutely right that there is no shortcut to sincere creativity, but it's mutually exclusive to AI generated writing.
Battybattybattybat:
There's a bot that scrapes these very profiles and stories (though I believe it can only access the first page) on this very site. Our words are being used for AI guys, we should feel honored. 😘
Morbido:
I want to assure you all that I don't steal stories or plots from the writers on this site. I solely rely on my imagination for the narratives, occasionally drawing inspiration from stories I've read over the years on this site. Moreover, I use AI text generators, though it's quite a challenge to make them as weirdo as our community when it comes to the theme of weight gain.
This is a passion project for me, something I wouldn't pursue if I weren't genuinely passionate about this genre of storytelling.
Battybattybattybat:
Yes, yes you do because AI scrapes this site and many others. It scrapes published books. It scrapes poetry, and articles, and essays all originally written by a human being. That's one of the major reasons why writers and artists don't like it.
Letters And Numbers:
And also -- ok, yes, all art is influenced by what came before it to some degree, sure. A writer in 2024 will be influenced by books they read and fold that into their own writing in one way or another. However, doing that requires you to actually read the books! Reading a bunch of Hemingway and then writing a story using Hemingway's voice can be an interesting project. Telling software to write in the style of Hemingway without having read or understood the source material is maybe a neat trick, but I think that's all you can say about it.
Friendly reminder that you can plagiarize art. There is thriving market for it that existed long before generative ai came into the scene.
Now, to be clear, I am not making any aspersions about OP. I don't know him. He seems like a decent enough person who doesn't understand how generative ai works.
And that's fine. Not everyone is in the know about that. Doesn't make you a bad person.
However, generative ai isn't the same thing as drawing inspiration.
When something inspires you, you take elements of the original and make it your own. Sometimes it's clear what your inspiration is, but the end product is transformed by putting your own flare on things.
Generative ai is incapable of doing this. Instead, it cobbles together bits and pieces of things using predictive algorithms. This is why it often repeats itself or spits out nonsense.
It's also terrible at nonfiction because it cannot discern what sources are useful and what sources or not. It also has the habit of hallucinating data. Why? Because it writes thing based on how others have written things before and spits it out with the algorithm.
