A Discussion on the Use and Regulation of AI in regards to Willard and Roleplay

[FungletheBungle]

With AI becoming more accessible and of a higher quality at a decent pace I believe that now is the correct time to be discussing the place of AI in regards to this community and roleplay as a whole, hopefully leading to the drafting of an AI policy in regards to any "Official" Willard Content and another honors policy for players to be expected to follow.

This is done recognizing that
-AI has potential uses as an assistive tool
-AI is not inherently damaging
-AI can assist in translating
-Some players use AI in varying capacities

But that's all you'll hear from me in the positives.

This is because I believe that the damage AI can do to the RP community is much much worse then the apparent benefits. To discuss this I hope that we can agree on the following point and take them as granted for the rest of discussion

-Willard is an artistic project with no financial incentives
-AI content can in cases be confused with human content
-People should have the right to know if they are talking in part or in whole to a human or an algorithm

The reason I bring this up now is I hold the opinion that the players should have the rights to the third point, you should know if they are talking in part or in whole to a human or an algorithm, or in this case consuming content that is AI generated. I am currently assisting with the writing of lore for V3, and another contributor who I will not mention by name (though they are welcome to join the conversation if they so wish and I encourage it), stated that

"I made this with some help from the AI"

and further

"Basically what some of us is doing so far is writing our pieces and then feeding the AI what we wrote and it fixes any spelling, grammar- or other mistakes and refines the text without changing the essence of what was written."

This concerned me but I hoped I was just overreacting and asked to see how much AI was used in the writing of the article for the Wiki. (It should be noted that he was an open book in regards to the inputs and outputs from the AI and for this I give them thanks.)


What I saw was not what I consider "help" from the AI but a totally AI generated Wiki page. Please look and judge for yourself.


This is just half of it, I have attached the full PDF into this post if you wish to further study the texts.
There are also other texts which are worse but may contain information that shows who I'm talking about

In my opinion, this is not refined text. Refined text is text which has had a word changed here or there, or a sentence shortened or lengthened for the sake of flow. This is entirely generated text. It has had the topic and information fed into it, and that text is human, but what it has produced is a new text, with a new style, prose and content. Yes it delivers the same information but this does not make it the same text.

This may be acceptable in other cases, I am not discussing that today. However Willard is a Role Play Community. More specifically a TEXT based Role Play Community. The whole "raison d'etre" is communicating a story in prose within the worlds we have chosen to engage with. I doubt it's described as it much, but Willard is at its very soul a collaborative art community. From the day it started art has been at the center. The writings of Marc Laidlaw, the concepts of Viktor Antonov and the artistic input of every sound designer, model maker and creative are what made half life 2 so beloved and are what made people come together in a community to experience it in whole new ways. These are human creations, no AI in history could ever make the world of half life as it is.

Now we can't regulate the players, AI usage can be hard to prove and we don't want any false positives. We can have an honors based system strictly imposed through the culture of the server and perhaps we can get something wrote up and agreed upon, however there is something we can do in regards to the Staff team.

I argue that every single piece of "Official" Willard content, this includes but is not limited to Events, Lore Documents, Wiki's, Forum Content, ect ect, should be totally AI Generation free.

This sets the example, without it there is no point in engaging with Willard at all. This shows people that genuine care and passion has gone into every single line of text, that when they choose to engage, they engage with content that has a human connected to it.

Art from a machine is worthless, every act of creation is a choice, a story. Some content is shit, don't get me wrong, but you couldn't walk when you were born. You struggled to learn and (hoping not to offend anyone who can't walk here, there'll be another good metaphor for you if that's the case) eventually achieved success, and it didn't stop there! From there you learned to run and jump, you used walking to go places to meet people. This skill opened up your life. Writing is the same. It's hard to learn, hard to get good at, sometimes it's just hard to do when you're not feeling it, but I promise you it's worth it. If you gave up learning to walk and let a machine do it you may never even have considered the joy of running, if you gave up talking and let a machine do it, you may have never had the chance to have tell someone you love them.

If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.

---

Proudly written without any AI (Grammar and spelling mistakes are all mine)

 

[CreekMando]

I honestly feel like the AI sob-story is so overdone.

AI is incredibly useful for many things, and I do agree with the points here. I firmly believe that AI should stay out of actual artistic mediums (cough cough #JustRP cough cough). And writing pieces like this shouldn't be allowed either.

But I think for AI policy, we shouldn't have it be where everyone has to prove their work is AI, that's impossible and foolish. We should be moderate with this, and know AI when we see it. What we especially need to do is avoid excess outrage and hyper-emotional responses to AI. Like it or not, AI is probably going to be the future (and the likelihood of us avoiding it is low), and it would be best for us to accept that it has it's uses.

We must use it responsibly, and know when and when not to use it.

 

[Inspector Orlok]

I honestly feel like the AI sob-story is so overdone.

AI is incredibly useful for many things, and I do agree with the points here. I firmly believe that AI should stay out of actual artistic mediums (cough cough #JustRP cough cough). And writing pieces like this shouldn't be allowed either.

But I think for AI policy, we shouldn't have it be where everyone has to prove their work is AI, that's impossible and foolish. We should be moderate with this, and know AI when we see it. What we especially need to do is avoid excess outrage and hyper-emotional responses to AI. Like it or not, AI is probably going to be the future (and the likelihood of us avoiding it is low), and it would be best for us to accept that it has it's uses.

We must use it responsibly, and know when and when not to use it.

It is an extremely lazy alternative to something which is supposed to be a creative hobby/endeavour. It's not an overdone sob story, it's a spit in the space to anyone who's actually taking the time to create, write, or produce anything meaningful for the server.

People in the MOE work hard to make posters at the request of others, and most of them are done with passion and genuine creativity. Then, until recently, we've been seeing those dogshit AI Civil Protection posters in-game.

I personally don't believe there should be some overarching rule to prevent people from using AI, but it should be up to the players to actually put effort in.

In short it's a very lazy alternative to something more genuine, flaws and all.

 

[M!NT]

Yeah I'm going to jump in on this one. Willard's #1 AI hater!!!!!!!

Here's the thing: I don't like AI slop. I refuse to read it. So much of the internet has been taken over by this shit, it's really about the only thing that keeps me here- the fact that there's still some humanity left in it all; the individual personalities that come through to form a community-written narrative. If instead we use some AI to make it all voiced like a buzzfeed article, then honestly, I immediately lose 100% interest in it. Fuck. That.

Seriously, you guys are grown ass adults. Act like it and write your own words. Don't rely on mommy chatgpt to do it for you. If you have to do that, then honestly it's just embarrassing, and it totally defeats the whole point of it all.

If someone does it on a character bio or to write a /me for them, I ask them what is the point? - but, ultimately, it isn't something that you can really do anything about. I suppose the only thing we could make a rule is no AI generated photorealistic faceclaims, especially on-server as decals. Seriously. It totally takes me out of the roleplay having it stare at me from across the room. Why not just... take a screenshot in single player, and put that in a little photoframe png? Is it too low res? I don't think so, but if that's the case, would it help if I made you all a little website to make them for you? idk.

Anyways, what we can do something about, is that we enforce that all text with the WN logo on it (lore, forum posts, etc) is human written. I am drawing a line in the sand right here. @Imperator RAD-X @Robert Don't force people to read AI slop.

If you're going to grind all the V3 lore through the AI slop machine, then you can just count me out right here and now. If you can't be bothered to write it yourself, then just don't write it at all. Don't weasel out of this with "it's only to fix grammar" that's just an excuse. There have been non-AI tools for well over a decade that can do that just fine.

We've rejected people's ban appeals on the premise that they are AI generated. Why do that, but then chisel this slop into the stone upon which we will build V3?

AI is probably going to be the future (and the likelihood of us avoiding it is low), and it would be best for us to accept that it has it's uses.

No chance. LLMs are just statistical probability machines, that's it. I have known about them since 2018. Don't buy into the tech bro nonsense, it will only ever be a spellchecker with a personality. Put in the effort and maintain your individuality. The more you use things like this, the more it eventually becomes a crutch. At first you lean on it just when you are tired but, before long, you cannot take a single step without it.

 

[CreekMando]

It is an extremely lazy alternative to something which is supposed to be a creative hobby/endeavour. It's not an overdone sob story, it's a spit in the space to anyone who's actually taking the time to create, write, or produce anything meaningful for the server.

People in the MOE work hard to make posters at the request of others, and most of them are done with passion and genuine creativity. Then, until recently, we've been seeing those dogshit AI Civil Protection posters in-game.

I personally don't believe there should be some overarching rule to prevent people from using AI, but it should be up to the players to actually put effort in.

In short it's a very lazy alternative to something more genuine, flaws and all.

I wholly agree with what you have to say. Honestly, to me, the usage of AI isn't exactly a spit in the face, but it certainly confuses me when certain people produce AI art to be distributed to others.. when an entire art department exists. If you don't want to go through the art department, learn how to do art yourself.

 

[CreekMando]

Yeah I'm going to jump in on this one. Willard's #1 AI hater!!!!!!!

Here's the thing: I don't like AI slop. I refuse to read it. So much of the internet has been taken over by this shit, it's really about the only thing that keeps me here- the fact that there's still some humanity left in it all; the individual personalities that come through to form a community-written narrative. If instead we use some AI to make it all voiced like a buzzfeed article, then honestly, I immediately lose 100% interest in it. Fuck. That.

Seriously, you guys are grown ass adults. Act like it and write your own words. Don't rely on mommy chatgpt to do it for you. If you have to do that, then honestly it's just embarrassing, and it totally defeats the whole point of it all.

If someone does it on a character bio or to write a /me for them, I ask them what is the point? - but, ultimately, it isn't something that you can really do anything about. I suppose the only thing we could make a rule is no AI generated photorealistic faceclaims, especially on-server as decals. Seriously. It totally takes me out of the roleplay having it stare at me from across the room. Why not just... take a screenshot in single player, and put that in a little photoframe png? Is it too low res? I don't think so, but if that's the case, would it help if I made you all a little website to make them for you? idk.

Anyways, what we can do something about, is that we enforce that all text with the WN logo on it (lore, forum posts, etc) is human written. I am drawing a line in the sand right here. @Imperator RAD-X @Robert Don't force people to read AI slop.

If you're going to grind all the V3 lore through the AI slop machine, then you can just count me out right here and now. If you can't be bothered to write it yourself, then just don't write it at all. Don't weasel out of this with "it's only to fix grammar" that's just an excuse. There have been non-AI tools for well over a decade that can do that just fine.

We've rejected people's ban appeals on the premise that they are AI generated. Why do that, but then chisel this slop into the stone upon which we will build V3?

View attachment 44566

No chance. LLMs are just statistical probability machines, that's it. I have known about them since 2018. Don't buy into the tech bro nonsense, it will only ever be a spellchecker with a personality. Put in the effort and maintain your individuality. The more you use things like this, the more it eventually becomes a crutch. At first you lean on it just when you are tired but, before long, you cannot take a single step without it.

Honestly, as harsh as some may say your point is, you're actually pretty right. I do think that people (especially grown adults) need to rely less on AI. Though, I still very much support the usage of it RESPONSIBLY. (Think the Breen voicelines on the combine radios.) Irresponsible usage of AI such as: using it to just write what you want, poster creation, and using AI voices to speak for your own values will never be okay.

This is the most irresponsible and violating piece of AI work ever produced in this community.

 

[Kamilisha Haijulikani]

Yeah I'm going to jump in on this one. Willard's #1 AI hater!!!!!!!

Here's the thing: I don't like AI slop. I refuse to read it. So much of the internet has been taken over by this shit, it's really about the only thing that keeps me here- the fact that there's still some humanity left in it all; the individual personalities that come through to form a community-written narrative. If instead we use some AI to make it all voiced like a buzzfeed article, then honestly, I immediately lose 100% interest in it. Fuck. That.

Seriously, you guys are grown ass adults. Act like it and write your own words. Don't rely on mommy chatgpt to do it for you. If you have to do that, then honestly it's just embarrassing, and it totally defeats the whole point of it all.

If someone does it on a character bio or to write a /me for them, I ask them what is the point? - but, ultimately, it isn't something that you can really do anything about. I suppose the only thing we could make a rule is no AI generated photorealistic faceclaims, especially on-server as decals. Seriously. It totally takes me out of the roleplay having it stare at me from across the room. Why not just... take a screenshot in single player, and put that in a little photoframe png? Is it too low res? I don't think so, but if that's the case, would it help if I made you all a little website to make them for you? idk.

Anyways, what we can do something about, is that we enforce that all text with the WN logo on it (lore, forum posts, etc) is human written. I am drawing a line in the sand right here. @Imperator RAD-X @Robert Don't force people to read AI slop.

If you're going to grind all the V3 lore through the AI slop machine, then you can just count me out right here and now. If you can't be bothered to write it yourself, then just don't write it at all. Don't weasel out of this with "it's only to fix grammar" that's just an excuse. There have been non-AI tools for well over a decade that can do that just fine.

We've rejected people's ban appeals on the premise that they are AI generated. Why do that, but then chisel this slop into the stone upon which we will build V3?

View attachment 44566

No chance. LLMs are just statistical probability machines, that's it. I have known about them since 2018. Don't buy into the tech bro nonsense, it will only ever be a spellchecker with a personality. Put in the effort and maintain your individuality. The more you use things like this, the more it eventually becomes a crutch. At first you lean on it just when you are tired but, before long, you cannot take a single step without it.

 

[ZeroPants]

I don't think AI should be used at all for anything on Willard, not lore, not art, not anything.

This is meant to be a hobby that people do for fun. Writing stories and creating art is what makes Willard fun, at least for me.

AI voices for event stuff are pretty much the only thing I can see AI being useful for. Even then, hearing an AI-generated voice can be pretty immersion-breaking; it's not hard to tell it isn't a human.

 

[tsaoT]

Art is meant to facilitate human connection.

I don't want to read, see, or hear a robot's take on something, I want yours.

 

[Robert]

Just want to pop in here as this post may unintentionally make people think that posts about lore whether by a player- lore team member or vice versa is AI Generated- given AI is increasingly harder and harder to prove these days without someone directly telling you "This has had AI Involvement to X capacity" but if no one does- its entirely honour reliant as you mention in the post

Now we can't regulate the players, AI usage can be hard to prove and we don't want any false positives. We can have an honors based system strictly imposed through the culture of the server and perhaps we can get something wrote up and agreed upon, however there is something we can do in regards to the Staff team.

However, without getting too much into the nitty gritty- there is some writers we are aware of- including myself who do utilize AI in different forms- whether it be as an assistance tool or others as their closest companion who may over-rely on AI to do all the work for them- and this I believe to a degree is fine.

Now the stance that already exists within the writing teams and possibly the event teams is the following type rules:
- You may use AI for voice-overs and Videos to a minimal extent or fully use AI for a complete voice over for a human-made video/content
- You cannot use AI for any Art-based endeavors like artwork, images, or other visual content
- You cannot use AI for any full-on content creation. Your work must be your own and should not involve AI outside of spellchecks/grammar checks and assisting in finding words or methods of wording.

Of course we can mostly on regulate visual or audio based content as AI is not advanced in those 2 fields yet but text based is much harder given these days AI and the ways humans write is almost 1 to 1. Of course, it does still generate obviously AI text here and there but that is far and few between and thus a honour system can only be utilized there.

Now we spoke with the French Directors and English Directors and the general consensus is the usage of AI is fine- if a Writer chooses to use it for their writing is fine given they do not:
A) Over rely on it
B) Use AI to write their entire pages for them, The ideas must be human, the intent must be human and the final revision must be human- AI should only be used as a assist- not a full-on writer/editor.
C) If AI use is used to a stronger than usual degree in a post- it should be made a disclaimer at the top of the page for later rewrite work by humanized means- drafts can use AI more, but must be a draft and not a final revision of the work.

To the world, AI is becoming a tool akin to when Photoshop and other technologies first appeared- at first they were frowned upon and hated but are now widely used today because overtime, humanity naturally accepts it. And while maintaining an AI free lore is possible- for some they do choose to use it as a minor assistant.

---

What about the PDF file shown in the OG Post?
Some may ask about that, so to clarify- this is an example of a draft page missing a disclaimer which has now been added for clarity as this is a draft page still awaiting human re-review. But the ideas present as shown in the above PDF were written by a human, along with the tone and style- AI has for the most part rewrote the original text making it a draft version due to "Heavy AI usage"- and currently on the semi-public sections of the Wiki which you are free to access anytime via the sidebar on the forums.



But yes, this has now been spoken about further in terms of the leadership of WN and the above outcomes were decided regarding AI usage. Ai should only be a tool for assistance like a Spellchecker on a slight bit of steroids and not as a editor nor writer to write work on its own nor edit large chunk of work- and instead as a minor helper to find words, better phrasing and even help come up with ideas or new terminology- but nothing beyond that level.

Hope that clears it up even if some may end up scratching their head on wondering if something is AI or not. For now honor is the only tool we can rely on when it comes to writing usage.

 

[FungletheBungle]

View attachment 44573

But yes, this has now been spoken about further in terms of the leadership of WN and the above outcomes were decided regarding AI usage. Ai should only be a tool for assistance like a Spellchecker on a slight bit of steroids and not as a editor nor writer to write work on its own nor edit large chunk of work- and instead as a minor helper to find words, better phrasing and even help come up with ideas or new terminology- but nothing beyond that level.

Hope that clears it up even if some may end up scratching their head on wondering if something is AI or not. For now honor is the only tool we can rely on when it comes to writing usage.

Plenty to respond to, but for the sake of conciseness I will simply state that a disclaimer is not good enough, it allows laziness in an area that should have a human text written. If people want to read about the current lore regarding 1991-2001 this is currently the most up to date option and it is AI. This is bad and should never be the case. Telling people that it's AI is better then not telling them, but it's still not acceptable to have it in the first place.

 

[MCG]

I know it has its positive uses but a lot of people are not using AI positively, so I'd rather not have it here if I can help it. I'm sure it's already a problem for those working in workshifts to have someone bullshit /me's.

 

[Robert]

Plenty to respond to, but for the sake of conciseness I will simply state that a disclaimer is not good enough, it allows laziness in an area that should have a human text written.

This is missing the point of the entire post I just made.

should be made a disclaimer at the top of the page for later rewrite work by humanized means- drafts can use AI more, but must be a draft and not a final revision of the work.

Keep in mind the Wiki is in a semi-public state- meaning its not meant for proper reading nor use yet- allowing for our writers to drop in half-assed work or unfinished work at any moment and its not there for finalized reading until someone says the Wiki is actually complete for V3 purposes.

AI is perfectly fine as a assistant, the point being against AI text is perfectly fine and also agreed upon per my literal post- but it being used as a tool to help out and give the writer some help is perfectly fine given the text is not just AI slop and is actually their own work.

Using even 1-10% of AI should never ever discredit anyones work, their ideas, efforts or so on- to go that far is an level of Anti-AI that some would consider extreme and also flawed because it would be equal to having someone modify your work and then stating the work is no longer yours because they changed a few words or rewrote a paragraph for you.

Its when its above 10% its bad and becomes a laziness or point of concern issue of ones writing ability. And creating a draft which uses more is fine because its a non-final version thus is technically like any draft is- a piece not made to be used as the final product for the end-user.

 

[FungletheBungle]

Keep in mind the Wiki is in a semi-public state- meaning its not meant for proper reading nor use yet- allowing for our writers to drop in half-assed work or unfinished work at any moment and its not there for finalized reading until someone says the Wiki is actually complete for V3 purposes.

AI is perfectly fine as a assistant, the point being against AI text is perfectly fine and also agreed upon per my literal post- but it being used as a tool to help out and give the writer some help is perfectly fine given the text is not just AI slop and is actually their own work.

Using even 1-10% of AI should never ever discredit anyones work, their ideas, efforts or so on- to go that far is an level of Anti-AI that some would consider extreme and also flawed because it would be equal to having someone modify your work and then stating the work is no longer yours because they changed a few words or rewrote a paragraph for you.

Its when its above 10% its bad and becomes a laziness or point of concern issue of ones writing ability. And creating a draft which uses more is fine because its a non-final version thus is technically like any draft is- a piece not made to be used as the final product for the end-user.

Reworking an AI generated text does not make it human made, it just makes it human edited. The fact that at some point in the process an AI generated a whole new version of the text that was late built upon is BAD.

 

[M!NT]

Now we spoke with the French Directors and English Directors and the general consensus is the usage of AI is fine- if a Writer chooses to use it for their writing is fine given they do not:
A) Over rely on it
B) Use AI to write their entire pages for them, The ideas must be human, the intent must be human and the final revision must be human- AI should only be used as a assist- not a full-on writer/editor.
C) If AI use is used to a stronger than usual degree in a post- it should be made a disclaimer at the top of the page for later rewrite work by humanized means- drafts can use AI more, but must be a draft and not a final revision of the work.

Not acceptable. I demand a better response than this. This is a massive non-answer to the problem at hand.

You cannot define "over reliance" on anything. Some (like me) interpret over reliance as any use of it at all really, while others wouldn't even consider an AI wiping their ass for them as over reliance.

It either needs to be "YES you can AI generate the V3 Lore" or "NO you cannot use AI generated text". It's one or the other @Robert

Have some backbone. Say what you're trying to say: It's fine for someone to spew AI slop all over the wiki and force the playerbase to read it, just as long as there is a disclaimer stating "this is AI slop, btw."

What about the PDF file shown in the OG Post?
Some may ask about that, so to clarify- this is an example of a draft page missing a disclaimer which has now been added for clarity as this is a draft page still awaiting human re-review. But the ideas present as shown in the above PDF were written by a human, along with the tone and style- AI has for the most part rewrote the original text making it a draft version due to "Heavy AI usage"- and currently on the semi-public sections of the Wiki which you are free to access anytime via the sidebar on the forums.

Of course we can mostly on regulate visual or audio based content as AI is not advanced in those 2 fields yet but text based is much harder given these days AI and the ways humans write is almost 1 to 1. Of course, it does still generate obviously AI text here and there but that is far and few between and thus a honour system can only be utilized there.

This is plain wrong. AI does not write like a human does. Given that an "AI" is no more than a statistical model, it's output can always be determined as such. See?:

AI is perfectly fine as a assistant, the point being against AI text is perfectly fine and also agreed upon per my literal post- but it being used as a tool to help out and give the writer some help is perfectly fine given the text is not just AI slop and is actually their own work.

Using even 1-10% of AI should never ever discredit anyones work, their ideas, efforts or so on- to go that far is an level of Anti-AI that some would consider extreme and also flawed because it would be equal to having someone modify your work and then stating the work is no longer yours because they changed a few words or rewrote a paragraph for you.

Yeah, because 10% == 84%.

But it'll be fine if it's >80% AI slop to start, where we use the AI to do literally the grand majority of the effort, then for a human to come in later and shift the words around so that gptzero can't find it- right? That's okay? If I build my house atop sand and it collapses, it's wrong to blaim the foundation?

To the world, AI is becoming a tool akin to when Photoshop and other technologies first appeared- at first they were frowned upon and hated but are now widely used today because overtime, humanity naturally accepts it. And while maintaining an AI free lore is possible- for some they do choose to use it as a minor assistant.

What are you even talking about?? Photoshop was never really "hated"? I for one will never accept this garbage, and plenty of other people won't either. You do not speak on behalf of humanity Robert. Reading the responses to this thread, you don't even speak for a majority of this community.

---

"The ideas are 100% mine."

Also while I'm at it, let me go ahead and nip this argument in the bud. You can prompt an AI to write you anything about anything, that's what it's designed to do. The idea may be yours, but the words are not. They are just in fact plagiarized from all the actual works of humanity whichever mega-corp trained the model stole to train the LLM. In that case, I wish not to suffer having to read such a text written by these means, and I know I am not alone in that.

 

[Robert]

Reworking an AI generated text does not make it human made, it just makes it human edited. The fact that at some point in the process an AI generated a whole new version of the text that was late built upon is BAD.

This would make sense had their not been an original piece provided TO the AI which the AI is following 1 for 1. Had this been entirely 100% AI generated with AI ideas, AI style and AI tone- your point would make sense- however falls flat the moment you account for the fact the original writing that the AI REWORDED this from is 110% human made and human written.

Who wrote the original: A Human
Who set the tone/style?: A Human
Who wrote all the text?: A Human

Who reworded it without changing much of the original apart from literally rephasing everything while keeping the OG ideas, intent and tone intact?: The AI.

Who will end up being the one to finish the final product? A Human.

If you are trying to discredit work simply because an AI waltzed in and had basically reformatted and reworded that of what the literal Original Writer wrote without inserting anything outside of what it was provided nor part of the original human text, which is then to later be edited again by a human. Than that is nothing short of being short-sighted and puts this more into the realm of a ideologically, emotional and culturally motivated take against AI usage.

I get your concerns but this point primarily makes sense in the context of AI slop generated where no human has really had any involvement nor input.

But in this case- a human provided a lore piece of their own design and making- all their idea. The AI was given that and made its modifications without changing, removing or adding any new not planned for per the original text. It took what was written already- modified its format, wording and structure and was placed into a draft for the writer to resume their work and finalize it in the vision they intend it to.

Sorry to be blunt, but that clear dismissal of the original writers work does actually tick me off very much, as it spits in the face of the writer and basically invalidates their work simply because an AI had touched it when the idea, style and everything about it outside of its AI-reformat is still the writers own work. It would be like a publisher modifying a entire page for you and then claiming its theirs when in reality its still the authors work. Its not the editors work, though they get credit, its not the publishers work and its not anyone elses work- purely the OG authors.

 

[M!NT]

Who wrote the original: A Human
Who set the tone/style?: A Human
Who wrote all the text?: A Human

Who reworded it without changing much of the original apart from literally rephasing everything while keeping the OG ideas, intent and tone intact?: The AI.

If you are trying to discredit work simply because an AI waltzed in and had basically reformatted and reworded that of what the literal Original Writer wrote without inserting anything outside of what it was provided nor part of the original human text, which is then to later be edited again by a human. Than that is nothing short of being short-sighted and puts this more into the realm of a ideologically, emotional and culturally motivated take against AI usage.

Yes, in fact, I am discrediting this work. If you claim the AI is doing so little, then just don't use it at all?

I know why, because the AI is actually what did all the heavy lifting:

 

[Atom]

this thread basically resumes to complete demonization of ai vs saying pros and cons of ai this sucks ass

 

[CreekMando]

this thread basically resumes to complete demonization of ai vs saying pros and cons of ai this sucks ass

This thread is less of respectful discussion and more of current age/grifter ideas being thrown against eachother. The AI stuff has been an outrage for so long, I can't remember when it hasn't been. At the end of the day, I feel like this is just a moral outrage.

 

[Robert]

Yes, in fact, I am discrediting this work. If you claim the AI is doing so little, then just don't use it at all?

I know why, because the AI is actually what did all the heavy lifting:

Not going to respond to your last post given how aggressively you responded as there is far better ways to come reply rather than swinging straight in.

But anyway, I am trying to make the point that the original text is human > its been edited by AI > to then be later be modified by a human editor/writer again who further cleans it up and actually makes it closer to the original text/vision while preserving the cleaniness of text the AI brought in.

this thread basically resumes to complete demonization of ai vs saying pros and cons of ai this sucks ass

This thread is less of respectful discussion and more of current age/grifter ideas being thrown against eachother. The AI stuff has been an outrage for so long, I can't remember when it hasn't been. At the end of the day, I feel like this is just a moral outrage.

True and true- I am just going to step out of the thread because yes- I do feel this is becoming an emotional battleground/discussion on morals and ethics of using AI and a case of AI = Bad without any discussion of why people seek to use it and why people dont use it- its good at some things bad at others.

Apologies for those who have to see this all.