AI content concerns and solutions
100% human...weeeeeeeeeeeee. I changed two words and then is was not.
In shadows of my gothic antebellum
the hybrids of the dark are cannibalizing
chewing words and exchanging identities
playing their own Nintendo using blurred words
leaving a bitter aftertaste of sodomites
endangering my Golem, raping my pen
waiting for the dominoes to fall
shooing away voices, my raw dog screaming
In shadows of my gothic antebellum
the hybrids of the dark are cannibalizing
chewing words and exchanging identities
playing their own Nintendo using blurred words
leaving a bitter aftertaste of sodomites
endangering my Golem, raping my pen
waiting for the dominoes to fall
shooing away voices, my raw dog screaming
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
I think praps we can go back to basics for a minute. remember why you read books, why you read poetry. why you felt compelled to write
maybe it is possible for the chatbox to throw out a great book which can pull some emotion from it's characters: feel excited for, afraid for etc I would be interested in reading that
I don't doubt it will be able to throw out a great movie script which could pull the same level of emotion praps more given the optics and director. I'd be interested in watching that
I've no doubt it could throw out some great poetry. I'd be interested in reading that out of curiosity
I don't buy into an 'its already here let's embrace it"
because there's every chance it could all be gone in a flash and kept out with some coding if that's the mind the webmiss takes
💯% agree it could be a handy tool for learning. I think at best it should be isolated. kept at arm's length. we don't need it in our general population. there's none of us looking to be Shakespeare.
I think it's unfortunate this subject came up because someone was caught trying to credit himself with it. it has put a bad taste on it
maybe it is possible for the chatbox to throw out a great book which can pull some emotion from it's characters: feel excited for, afraid for etc I would be interested in reading that
I don't doubt it will be able to throw out a great movie script which could pull the same level of emotion praps more given the optics and director. I'd be interested in watching that
I've no doubt it could throw out some great poetry. I'd be interested in reading that out of curiosity
I don't buy into an 'its already here let's embrace it"
because there's every chance it could all be gone in a flash and kept out with some coding if that's the mind the webmiss takes
💯% agree it could be a handy tool for learning. I think at best it should be isolated. kept at arm's length. we don't need it in our general population. there's none of us looking to be Shakespeare.
I think it's unfortunate this subject came up because someone was caught trying to credit himself with it. it has put a bad taste on it
how do we know this person was trying to take credit for using AI? have they admitted it? I'm seriously curious. point me to places where i can catch up. 
Like I said a few posts back, I ran some AI generated poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 100% likely that a human had created them. when i know that i had literally just generated them using AI. i ran several of Mr. Black's poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 95-100% likely that a human had created them. some of my poems come back as 95-100% likely that a human created them. one even came back as 67% likely that it had been written by AI and a human. i checked about 10 random poems from the poems page and they all came back anywhere from 45-100% likely that a human had created them with a few mixed in with a percentage likely that an AI had created them.
are we relying on an AI detector to point fingers or our own thoughts on the subject? i'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just wondering how the collective came to suspect someone of using AI.
so...how do we know? are we making assumptions?
NOW, if this is all because of one person having a string of suspicious comp wins, that has nothing to do with AI (in my opinion), and everything to do with someone possibly rigging the system with multiple accounts or their friends.
Like I said a few posts back, I ran some AI generated poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 100% likely that a human had created them. when i know that i had literally just generated them using AI. i ran several of Mr. Black's poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 95-100% likely that a human had created them. some of my poems come back as 95-100% likely that a human created them. one even came back as 67% likely that it had been written by AI and a human. i checked about 10 random poems from the poems page and they all came back anywhere from 45-100% likely that a human had created them with a few mixed in with a percentage likely that an AI had created them.
are we relying on an AI detector to point fingers or our own thoughts on the subject? i'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just wondering how the collective came to suspect someone of using AI.
so...how do we know? are we making assumptions?
NOW, if this is all because of one person having a string of suspicious comp wins, that has nothing to do with AI (in my opinion), and everything to do with someone possibly rigging the system with multiple accounts or their friends.
Yeah, he did. He put us all down for not accepting a superior way of doing shit.
Five-six pages back.
So. Yeah.
DaisyGrace said:how do we know this person was trying to take credit for using AI? have they admitted it? I'm seriously curious. point me to places where i can catch up.
Like I said a few posts back, I ran some AI generated poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 100% likely that a human had created them. when i know that i had literally just generated them using AI. i ran several of Mr. Black's poems through an AI detector and they all came back as 95-100% likely that a human had created them. some of my poems come back as 95-100% likely that a human created them. one even came back as 67% likely that it had been written by AI and a human. i checked about 10 random poems from the poems page and they all came back anywhere from 45-100% likely that a human had created them with a few mixed in with a percentage likely that an AI had created them.
are we relying on an AI detector to point fingers or our own thoughts on the subject? i'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just wondering how the collective came to suspect someone of using AI.
so...how do we know? are we making assumptions?
NOW, if this is all because of one person having a string of suspicious comp wins, that has nothing to do with AI (in my opinion), and everything to do with someone possibly rigging the system with multiple accounts or their friends.
I asked the AI to write a poem about a girl breaking "your" heart and then apologized, four stanzas. This is what it gave me five seconds later:
She shattered my heart like glass one day,
And left me standing in the cold,
I watched her leave without a word to say,
As tears began to unfold.
But time moved on, as it always does,
And slowly my heart began to heal,
I found new love, and new ways to buzz,
And learned that love can sometimes be surreal.
Then one day, out of the blue,
She came back into my life,
And offered apologies anew,
For causing me so much strife.
Her words were honest, and full of remorse,
And I could tell she meant every line,
Though I had moved on, without much force,
I forgave her, and let the past unwind.
So now we're friends, and nothing more,
But her apology set my heart free,
I'll never forget what happened before,
But I'm glad that we can peacefully be.
I then asked it if it was written by AI or human.
This is what it said:
Based on the style and content of the poem, it's difficult to determine with certainty whether it was generated by AI or written by a human. However, the use of natural language and the emotional depth of the poem suggest that it was more likely written by a human. The poem also exhibits a certain level of creativity and imagination that is typically associated with human writing. Nonetheless, it is still possible that an advanced AI language model could generate a poem with similar qualities.
Me: if an AI writes a poem and then it's immediately asked if it wrote the poem, it doesn't know?
AI: That's correct. An AI language model doesn't have the ability to recognize its own output or memory of previous interactions unless it is specifically programmed to do so. When asked if it wrote a poem, an AI language model would simply evaluate the style and content of the poem to determine if it is more likely to have been generated by a human or an AI language model based on its training and algorithms.
The AI (ChatGPT) uses pretty much the same formulaic rhythm and rhyme, pretty standard but otherwise missing the human touch. There's no database or archiving of any sort within it's own platform which does make it difficult to run through and check with other sources.
Not sure why it makes me think of Blade Runner, now we have to figure out who the replicants are when their poetry is lacking soul.
She shattered my heart like glass one day,
And left me standing in the cold,
I watched her leave without a word to say,
As tears began to unfold.
But time moved on, as it always does,
And slowly my heart began to heal,
I found new love, and new ways to buzz,
And learned that love can sometimes be surreal.
Then one day, out of the blue,
She came back into my life,
And offered apologies anew,
For causing me so much strife.
Her words were honest, and full of remorse,
And I could tell she meant every line,
Though I had moved on, without much force,
I forgave her, and let the past unwind.
So now we're friends, and nothing more,
But her apology set my heart free,
I'll never forget what happened before,
But I'm glad that we can peacefully be.
I then asked it if it was written by AI or human.
This is what it said:
Based on the style and content of the poem, it's difficult to determine with certainty whether it was generated by AI or written by a human. However, the use of natural language and the emotional depth of the poem suggest that it was more likely written by a human. The poem also exhibits a certain level of creativity and imagination that is typically associated with human writing. Nonetheless, it is still possible that an advanced AI language model could generate a poem with similar qualities.
Me: if an AI writes a poem and then it's immediately asked if it wrote the poem, it doesn't know?
AI: That's correct. An AI language model doesn't have the ability to recognize its own output or memory of previous interactions unless it is specifically programmed to do so. When asked if it wrote a poem, an AI language model would simply evaluate the style and content of the poem to determine if it is more likely to have been generated by a human or an AI language model based on its training and algorithms.
The AI (ChatGPT) uses pretty much the same formulaic rhythm and rhyme, pretty standard but otherwise missing the human touch. There's no database or archiving of any sort within it's own platform which does make it difficult to run through and check with other sources.
Not sure why it makes me think of Blade Runner, now we have to figure out who the replicants are when their poetry is lacking soul.
Accusations are cheap. In all honesty, I hope there has not been a rush to judgment. We cannot have a lynch mob mentality. If DUP is going to become a court, it needs to have proof. Don't take sides are be influenced by others. Let's be honest and adults. Something is terribly wrong, when we have to check our own poems out. If members cannot be treated equally then Its time to move on. I want to write without a noose over my head. There are good people here and there are some that should be shown the door. We are getting into unchartered waters because lets be honest, Many times it seems to be a popularity contest. This was suppose to be about AI. Someone is laughing and we all fell for it.
If an AI can't confirm whether or not it wrote its own poem, how on earth is a webmaster ( or mistress, in this case ) going to code to prevent AI submissions? Unless the actual submission has some sort of AI signature, it's impossible.
I stand by my previous comment:
The best thing to do as a collective on this site is suggest ways to integrate it into the present in a fair and objective way. As far as I see it, competitions are the only caveat to AI?
Is there an additional caveat to AI on this site outside of competitions?
AI is here to stay. Mark my words on that. History has proven change is inevitable in art, in music, in medicine, in all things. I remember when the computer was deemed "evil" when it replaced the typewriter, and it only advanced in technology.
There will always be ways to circumvent the rules. The future is coming for us and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Right now, AI is still raw and cannot be used for a conclusive verification analysis ( obviously ).
What else can we do except find ways to integrate it into a fair and objective manner? Instead of shaming and blaming based on speculation ( the opposite of irrefutable proof ), why don't we embrace it so members don't feel they should have to hide it. Instead, give them a place to freely express themselves in whatever way they choose?
I stand by my previous comment:
The best thing to do as a collective on this site is suggest ways to integrate it into the present in a fair and objective way. As far as I see it, competitions are the only caveat to AI?
Is there an additional caveat to AI on this site outside of competitions?
AI is here to stay. Mark my words on that. History has proven change is inevitable in art, in music, in medicine, in all things. I remember when the computer was deemed "evil" when it replaced the typewriter, and it only advanced in technology.
There will always be ways to circumvent the rules. The future is coming for us and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Right now, AI is still raw and cannot be used for a conclusive verification analysis ( obviously ).
What else can we do except find ways to integrate it into a fair and objective manner? Instead of shaming and blaming based on speculation ( the opposite of irrefutable proof ), why don't we embrace it so members don't feel they should have to hide it. Instead, give them a place to freely express themselves in whatever way they choose?
Betty said:
Yeah, he did. He put us all down for not accepting a superior way of doing shit.
Five-six pages back.
So. Yeah.
okay. i went through the thread again and then the other thread by daniel that led me to some comments etc. i don't think he actually came right out and said that he was using AI, but it can be inferred from the diatribe he was spewing.
BUT, i keep going back to the fact that if we use the zerogpt.me website that daniel provided as the guidepost, then those poems he has in poem of the month are written by a human. if we were to take my NaPo poem from a couple of days ago (the one called Jim), and run it through the AI detector, it says that there is a 67% chance it was written by AI and a human. so should my Jim poem be taken off the site? (Ahavati and other NaPo team members, I promise I wrote it! It's all me!)
I just don't know what we can do since we don't really have a guidepost to hold poems up to. I looked through several AI poems and thought they lacked 'heart' or any emotional pulls. But I can also look at poetry that my kids have written for school and say the same thing. They are new to writing poetry and they are trying to fill in a template. so some of the poetry that people are saying lacks something could be new poets that are just learning and following a template.
Yeah, he did. He put us all down for not accepting a superior way of doing shit.
Five-six pages back.
So. Yeah.
okay. i went through the thread again and then the other thread by daniel that led me to some comments etc. i don't think he actually came right out and said that he was using AI, but it can be inferred from the diatribe he was spewing.
BUT, i keep going back to the fact that if we use the zerogpt.me website that daniel provided as the guidepost, then those poems he has in poem of the month are written by a human. if we were to take my NaPo poem from a couple of days ago (the one called Jim), and run it through the AI detector, it says that there is a 67% chance it was written by AI and a human. so should my Jim poem be taken off the site? (Ahavati and other NaPo team members, I promise I wrote it! It's all me!)
I just don't know what we can do since we don't really have a guidepost to hold poems up to. I looked through several AI poems and thought they lacked 'heart' or any emotional pulls. But I can also look at poetry that my kids have written for school and say the same thing. They are new to writing poetry and they are trying to fill in a template. so some of the poetry that people are saying lacks something could be new poets that are just learning and following a template.
DaisyGrace said:
okay. i went through the thread again and then the other thread by daniel that led me to some comments etc. i don't think he actually came right out and said that he was using AI, but it can be inferred from the diatribe he was spewing.
BUT, i keep going back to the fact that if we use the zerogpt.me website that daniel provided as the guidepost, then those poems he has in poem of the month are written by a human. if we were to take my NaPo poem from a couple of days ago (the one called Jim), and run it through the AI detector, it says that there is a 67% chance it was written by AI and a human. so should my Jim poem be taken off the site? (Ahavati and other NaPo team members, I promise I wrote it! It's all me!)
I just don't know what we can do since we don't really have a guidepost to hold poems up to. I looked through several AI poems and thought they lacked 'heart' or any emotional pulls. But I can also look at poetry that my kids have written for school and say the same thing. They are new to writing poetry and they are trying to fill in a template. so some of the poetry that people are saying lacks something could be new poets that are just learning and following a template.
But but but. . .the AI said otherwise! I am consulting with the team forthwith!
okay. i went through the thread again and then the other thread by daniel that led me to some comments etc. i don't think he actually came right out and said that he was using AI, but it can be inferred from the diatribe he was spewing.
BUT, i keep going back to the fact that if we use the zerogpt.me website that daniel provided as the guidepost, then those poems he has in poem of the month are written by a human. if we were to take my NaPo poem from a couple of days ago (the one called Jim), and run it through the AI detector, it says that there is a 67% chance it was written by AI and a human. so should my Jim poem be taken off the site? (Ahavati and other NaPo team members, I promise I wrote it! It's all me!)
I just don't know what we can do since we don't really have a guidepost to hold poems up to. I looked through several AI poems and thought they lacked 'heart' or any emotional pulls. But I can also look at poetry that my kids have written for school and say the same thing. They are new to writing poetry and they are trying to fill in a template. so some of the poetry that people are saying lacks something could be new poets that are just learning and following a template.
But but but. . .the AI said otherwise! I am consulting with the team forthwith!
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
I have a stye that doesn't endear me to the mainstream. I have been writing on the media for 15 years. Now I am nervous, I have no reason to be nervous...or do I? I am not here to win a popularity contest or hang a fictious banner on the wall. I have been threaten, which is against the law. DUP had the proof and did nothing about. BUT! then they put someone on timeout, on someone's word. Who is next. I don't own my allegiance to anyone but God and family. I sure hope the cart wasn't put before the horse. It's starting to smell that way. Has anyone every ask, why people are moving on from DUP?
Anonymous said:<< post removed >>
Your post puts things in a new perspective, thank you.
I don’t think that there’s a plausible way to “spot the bot”. I took a survey on another writing site that asked us to pick between AI generated poem and the human one. I chose wrong! So I certainly wouldn’t trust myself to pick out who is using technology and who isn’t. And honestly, I could see something like that easily turning into a witch-hunt. Things get a little uneasy around here from time to time.
Your post puts things in a new perspective, thank you.
I don’t think that there’s a plausible way to “spot the bot”. I took a survey on another writing site that asked us to pick between AI generated poem and the human one. I chose wrong! So I certainly wouldn’t trust myself to pick out who is using technology and who isn’t. And honestly, I could see something like that easily turning into a witch-hunt. Things get a little uneasy around here from time to time.
'The potential of ChatGPT's capability to perfectly mimic human beings has also been acknowledged by lawmakers. In January, a law was passed stating that it's illegal to discriminate against any individual using ChatGPT, especially if they are using it for poetry, writing a book or story. This law came after many websites had been fined for banning users for relying on AI language models for their writing."
I web searched that paragraph because I was interested in reading the legislation. didn't find it right off but was offered a plethora of interesting newspaper articles which covered poetry and the AI
wouldn't mind a link to the legislation if there's one handy
I web searched that paragraph because I was interested in reading the legislation. didn't find it right off but was offered a plethora of interesting newspaper articles which covered poetry and the AI
wouldn't mind a link to the legislation if there's one handy
