AI content concerns and solutions
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Mr. Black,
If you don’t like it, why don’t you like us doing it to you?
Shit or get off the pot.
Just… unblock me. I will ethically use your resource to prove you are right.
I will respect this new form.
Oh… so much respect.
Just let me review you 😊
Or you can rant and look like a cuntcake
PS
I’m a villain character here so I get off the more you fight….
Here kitty, kitty…
If you don’t like it, why don’t you like us doing it to you?
Shit or get off the pot.
Just… unblock me. I will ethically use your resource to prove you are right.
I will respect this new form.
Oh… so much respect.
Just let me review you 😊
Or you can rant and look like a cuntcake
PS
I’m a villain character here so I get off the more you fight….
Here kitty, kitty…
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Omg! We are being trolled!! Ahahahah!!!!
He’s using Ai for the reply!
Start saying random shit to fuck with the algorithms!
Crab soup. Elephant. Penis. Coddle. Bloop.
Lol!
Don’t interact with it. He can’t get a full response. If there is coherent shit.
Love, Betty
He’s using Ai for the reply!
Start saying random shit to fuck with the algorithms!
Crab soup. Elephant. Penis. Coddle. Bloop.
Lol!
Don’t interact with it. He can’t get a full response. If there is coherent shit.
Love, Betty
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Anonymous
<< post removed >>
Betty said:Daisy the answer is that we can’t compete. It’s steroids at the Olympics.
For example… picking two random poets:
Mr Black can plug your poem into ChatGpt and ask it for an analysis and in about 12 seconds, get a great review. He then passes that off as his unique work.
Daniel spends an hour giving an analysis that is heartfelt and thought provoking.
Mr Black can wipe the floor with Daniel using tech and claiming it’s his.
People are also using the same tech to write poetry.
This site has a monthly reviewer contest and many poetry contests. This practice is taking a toll on the people who bust their ass to put works out.
We have a previous thread negotiating the pros and cons and how to address this.
It’s fucked, basically.
If the users identified ‘this is not my poem, it was written by CHAtgpt’ would you want to read it?
If the users identified ‘this is a chat got’ comment, as I have done in Mr Blacks work, would you care much about the comment?
If you care less about a robot, then it means you value human effort. Human effort is being displaced through cheating
It’s fucked 🙂
I'm not arguing with you. I'm actually not a fan of AI generated art of any kind. so keep that in mind when you read the rest of this comment.
When it comes to comments received from real people vs an AI user, i don't think i really care. If the AI comment offers up a piece of helpful advice, great. if it seems like a bunch of smoke blown up my ass, whatever. i don't think i care. i also don't care if they get a 'reviewer' award either. BUT that is just me. i may be in the minority. i'm really just here to think some things out loud since i actually have been thinking about AI generated art quite a bit recently. i get a few comments here and there from people that I have developed relationships with here and a few random ones here and there. i'm not picky about comments and reads and likes and reading list entries or what have you. i just pop in from time to time.
when it comes to winning contests, if the host/judge/people of the community like a poem written by AI, then they like it. it's what its. but if what has been said here in this thread is echoed throughout the rest of the community (you can tell a poem/comment) is written by AI because it feels off or too perfect) then I don't see the problem. if people can recognize it, they won't vote for it or chose it as the winner. this would greatly increase if people just judged their own contests instead of leaving it up for a public vote. (please don't leave your contests up for public vote. if you're going to host a contest, host the damn contest and do the job as the judge!)
again, I don't have a clue about any of the AI drama that has apparently taken place here. I'm genuinely curious. i'm of the opinion that humans will always create art. AI generated content will not replace human beings and their creative tendencies. artists use to think that cameras were replacing them and their art. painters that use actual paint worried that using computers and technology would cut into their craft. hell, the gregorian monks were PISSED when people actually started using music theory to help them write music instead of doing it the way they always had.
are we doing the same thing when we worry about AI generated art?
For example… picking two random poets:
Mr Black can plug your poem into ChatGpt and ask it for an analysis and in about 12 seconds, get a great review. He then passes that off as his unique work.
Daniel spends an hour giving an analysis that is heartfelt and thought provoking.
Mr Black can wipe the floor with Daniel using tech and claiming it’s his.
People are also using the same tech to write poetry.
This site has a monthly reviewer contest and many poetry contests. This practice is taking a toll on the people who bust their ass to put works out.
We have a previous thread negotiating the pros and cons and how to address this.
It’s fucked, basically.
If the users identified ‘this is not my poem, it was written by CHAtgpt’ would you want to read it?
If the users identified ‘this is a chat got’ comment, as I have done in Mr Blacks work, would you care much about the comment?
If you care less about a robot, then it means you value human effort. Human effort is being displaced through cheating
It’s fucked 🙂
I'm not arguing with you. I'm actually not a fan of AI generated art of any kind. so keep that in mind when you read the rest of this comment.
When it comes to comments received from real people vs an AI user, i don't think i really care. If the AI comment offers up a piece of helpful advice, great. if it seems like a bunch of smoke blown up my ass, whatever. i don't think i care. i also don't care if they get a 'reviewer' award either. BUT that is just me. i may be in the minority. i'm really just here to think some things out loud since i actually have been thinking about AI generated art quite a bit recently. i get a few comments here and there from people that I have developed relationships with here and a few random ones here and there. i'm not picky about comments and reads and likes and reading list entries or what have you. i just pop in from time to time.
when it comes to winning contests, if the host/judge/people of the community like a poem written by AI, then they like it. it's what its. but if what has been said here in this thread is echoed throughout the rest of the community (you can tell a poem/comment) is written by AI because it feels off or too perfect) then I don't see the problem. if people can recognize it, they won't vote for it or chose it as the winner. this would greatly increase if people just judged their own contests instead of leaving it up for a public vote. (please don't leave your contests up for public vote. if you're going to host a contest, host the damn contest and do the job as the judge!)
again, I don't have a clue about any of the AI drama that has apparently taken place here. I'm genuinely curious. i'm of the opinion that humans will always create art. AI generated content will not replace human beings and their creative tendencies. artists use to think that cameras were replacing them and their art. painters that use actual paint worried that using computers and technology would cut into their craft. hell, the gregorian monks were PISSED when people actually started using music theory to help them write music instead of doing it the way they always had.
are we doing the same thing when we worry about AI generated art?
