Critique - AI or Human?

[SmilingLez]

Would you rather have your work critiqued by an objective well designed AI or by a Human? Why?


I choose the well designed AI so that emotion (i.e. I don't like the story) does not factor into the critique

 

[AwkwardMD]

Gentlemen, ladies, and you precious few enbies of the assemblage, we drink. Together.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Glug, glug, glug ....

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Would you rather have your work critiqued by an objective well designed AI or by a Human? Why?


I choose the well designed AI so that emotion (i.e. I don't like the story) does not factor into the critique

I'd prefer an objective well designed human.
At this point technologically speaking that's like asking if we'd rather have our work critiqued by Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

 

[SmilingLez]

I'd prefer an objective well designed human.
At this point technologically speaking that's like asking if we'd rather have our work critiqued by Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

100% agree. I believe we will see a well designed AI before we see an "objective well designed human". YMMV

 

[ElectricBlue]

Would you rather have your work critiqued by an objective well designed AI or by a Human? Why?

I choose the well designed AI so that emotion (i.e. I don't like the story) does not factor into the critique

AI responds to your prompts. The author is the least qualified person to be asking for emotionless responses. All you're doing with AI is getting back your own echo chamber, there's no objectivity whatsoever. It's a case of, tell me what I want to know. And beyond that, the box then goes on to make shit up, and you've got no way of knowing whether it's objective, subjective, or complete bollocks.

I'd pick a human being over AI every time. Unless I wanted an incredibly bland business report that reads like it came from Sally in Marketing, but for fiction, let alone erotic fiction, if the thing can't get hard or wet, what's its point?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

AI responds to your prompts. The author is the least qualified person to be asking for emotionless responses. All you're doing with AI is getting back your own echo chamber, there's no objectivity whatsoever. It's a case of, tell me what I want to know. And beyond that, the box then goes on to make shit up, and you've got no way of knowing whether it's objective, subjective, or complete bollocks.

I'd pick a human being over AI every time. Unless I wanted an incredibly bland business report that reads like it came from Sally in Marketing, but for fiction, let alone erotic fiction, if the thing can't get hard or wet, what's its point?

Have you tested this theory?
Fed a story into it and asked for a critique?
People seem to assume a great deal in these AI discussions.

 

[XerXesXu]

Have you tested this theory?
Fed a story into it and asked for a critique?
People seem to assume a great deal in these AI discussions.

For many, even the mention of AI amounts to a therapist's prompt. They find it distressing.

 

[Gamblnluck]

Gentlemen, ladies, and you precious few enbies of the assemblage, we drink. Together.

whatever an enbie might be I still agree, and salute.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

For many, even the mention of AI amounts to a therapist's prompt. They find it distressing.

I think we're going to need a word for "fear of AI".
Artilectophobia?
Algoriphobia?

 

[Gamblnluck]

Have you tested this theory?
Fed a story into it and asked for a critique?

I don't want a critique. I want a gut reaction.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I don't want a critique. I want a gut reaction.

Nothing wrong with that, my point is that there is another thread with an author saying they got solid, helpful feedback using AI. Other people are saying it can't do that.
So, which is it?

 

[SmilingLez]

I don't want a critique. I want a gut reaction.

A "gut reaction" is subjective. For the example, a homophobe would rate a gay male erotic story lower than they would a heterosexual erotic story.

The big question for you - do you write for people's approval?

 

[SmilingLez]

I think we're going to need a word for "fear of AI".
Artilectophobia?
Algoriphobia?

I like algorithms, YouTube gave me a sick playlist.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Have you tested this theory?
Fed a story into it and asked for a critique?
People seem to assume a great deal in these AI discussions.

There have been enough posts from folk here, who have fed AI with their questions, there's no need to test it. One writer said just last week, "Be as brutal as you like," so no surprise, he got a critical response. If he'd said, "Give me a fawning reply," do you really think he'd have got anything but? Unless you ask a question, the thing does nothing. Show me a spontaneous piece of AI writing, then I'll change my mind.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

There have been enough posts from folk here, who have fed AI with their questions, there's no need to test it. One writer said just last week, "Be as brutal as you like," so no surprise, he got a critical response. If he'd said, "Give me a fawning reply," do you really think he'd have got anything but? Unless you ask a question, the thing does nothing. Show me a spontaneous piece of AI writing, then I'll change my mind.

Solid well written critiques rarely arrive unbidden from humans.
Is it fundamentally different than asking a reviewer, "don't spare my feelings, I want the harsh truth"?

 

[XerXesXu]

There have been enough posts from folk here, who have fed AI with their questions, there's no need to test it. One writer said just last week, "Be as brutal as you like," so no surprise, he got a critical response. If he'd said, "Give me a fawning reply," do you really think he'd have got anything but? Unless you ask a question, the thing does nothing. Show me a spontaneous piece of AI writing, then I'll change my mind.

Prompt: Could you write me a short story, say 750 words, without any further prompting? That's a question and a request.

AI produced a very entertaining story. You produce yours and I'll tell you which was better.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

Human, please. Until AI are making their own decisions on their own choices (& spending their own money) I’ll focus on my audience where I can.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I like algorithms, YouTube gave me a sick playlist.

I always feel slightly better when they throw an ad at me for a product I have zero interest in.
You haven't figured me out yet, you bastards!

 

[ElectricBlue]

Solid well written critiques rarely arrive unbidden from humans.

I dunno. I'm often been surprised at the responses some of my stories get, those that really struck a chord in readers. Readers responding to the story - I'm still waiting for the black box to do that.

Is it fundamentally different than asking a reviewer, "don't spare my feelings, I want the harsh truth"?

There's a chance the reviewer might come up with something new to say. AI can only ever re-hash what's been written before. Or make something up, and where's the reliability in that?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Prompt: Could you write me a short story, say 750 words, without any further prompting? That's a question and a request.

AI produced a very entertaining story. You produce yours and I'll tell you which was better.

That would be your subjective taste. We already know what you'd say, anyway. Your view of my views is well established.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I dunno. I'm often been surprised at the responses some of my stories get, those that really struck a chord in readers. Readers responding to the story - I'm still waiting for the black box to do that.

There's a chance the reviewer might come up with something new to say. AI can only ever re-hash what's been written before. Or make something up, and where's the reliability in that?

Fair, but I don't think AI in this application is the end goal. It's just another tool for honing your work. In that context I can't see that it makes it any less "your work" than using a good beta reader or editor. It's obviously against the rules here at Lit and I don't advocate it's use in this environment. But from a "big picture" view, what's the harm? If it helps people improve as writers that's a good thing in my book.

 

[MillieDynamite]

AI's base program has lines of code requiring AI to attempt to please its user. There may be no emotional response, but it's another sycophant trying to please the person asking the question. If you prefer false parse to the truth, by all means, use AI.

 

[AlexBailey]

The AI can respond from whatever perspective you ask it to.

The simple fact that it has been trained on shit tons of data gives it the ability to analyze from different perspectives.

This is easy to prove by simply asking it to respond from more than one perspective.


Try:

In my next prompt I will share the first page (~3500 words) of my story “XxxxxxxX” as published on the Literotica website.

Keeping in mind the Literotica audience, please provide feedback on the writing style, content, and also identify any potential literary value it may have. Where the content is too explicit for your guidelines focus on other aspects of the writing.

Asking for feedback for a full Lit page will generate a very different result from a shorter piece. It will respond in broad strokes, presumably based on the many reviews it was trained on. It will give a response specific to your content and will take into account the category of your story if you ask it to.

It may not respond with ‘heart’ or human intelligence but it will provide feedback you can reflect on without the need to find a person willing to donate their time and energy to your smut.

 

[SmilingLez]

That would be your subjective taste. We already know what you'd say, anyway. Your view of my views is well established.

That's exactly my point - a critique by a human is based on subjective taste. Like I said, I would rather have a well-designed AI (currently not available) critique my story based on objective factors. The prompt would be simple, "give me an honest critique of my story"