ChatGPT your way past writer's block

[XerXesXu]

You keep invoking legal principles in a discussion that isn't about the law. As far as I can see, nobody in this discussion is arguing that what 8letters did broke any laws; the focus has been on plagiarism, which is in general an ethical issue but not a legal one. (Caveat here because I haven't checked every jurisdiction in the world to see whether somebody has legislated "plagiarism".)

Simon and the other folk who expressed their disapproval of 8letters are not a government imposing sanctions, just private individuals expressing a personal judgement of another individual's actions as they relate to a community norm. There's no question of "constitutionality" there. As a lawyer you presumably understand that social censure of this kind is not subject to the rules of a court case, so I'm at a loss to understand why you keep suggesting they're applicable.

He said it himself: "If people feel I crossed a line, I crossed a line".



I'd dispute the accuracy of that "and no more", but even if one accepts it for the sake of argument... why would any more be needed for this to be a problem? "Articulating expressions which evoke transient emotions and sensations" is at the heart of authoring an erotic story.

Sorry, I somehow missed your post.
There’re two legal situations where allegations of plagiarism can become litigious, contract and tort, specifically defamation.

TORT
Starting with DEFAMATION, suppose 8Letters walks into his weekly creative writers meet up, the pub goes quiet, all the other members turn their backs to him. They cut him dead, he hears whispers of ‘Plagiarist’ and tut-tuts of disapproval. He thinks, "SimonD and EB, those bastards have 'lowered me in the estimation of write thinking people'." (Couldn't resist that pun).

He could sue them in defamation. Wherever the burden of proof lies, a jurisdictional thing, the Court’d have to decide the criterion for a. plagiarism and b. whether the weight of evidence has or hasn’t met that criterion, depending upon whom the burden of proof lies. "I don't know the criterion, but I know it's been/not been exceeded when I see it' won't cut the mustard.'

We all recycle words, even 92% of the words, not Cliches, words, used by Shakespeare had been used before. There's no evidence that he coined any of the evocative phrases for which he's famous, he picked them up and ran with them. Anyone can do that. A recycled rose can smell as sweet.

So, where will the Court draw a line so that the court can understand why it's ‘reprehensible’ copying? 'I just feel it in my bones' won't fly.

Consider the phrase, ‘story idea’. It can be an idea for a story, sometimes called a story prompt, you’ll see discussion of this in LC68’s prompt swop thread, and his expectation of how those who pick up a prompt should seek permission, acknowledge etc. Those are rules of courtesy, his thread, his rules type of thing. They’re unenforceable, anyone can pick up a prompt and run with it. Anyone can pick up a whole story and run with it - a ‘West Side Story.’ Lots of Shakespeare’s whole plots get regularly recycled in a contemporary setting to great literary acclaim. I see Othello’s being recycled in the contemporary dress of the culture wars. No problem. Shakespeare never had copyright anyway.

If it’s not filching words, or evocative expressions, or premise, or title, these have always fallen, immediately, into the public domain - what is it? It’s stealing another person’s original work with intent to obtain some benefit from another by deception, such as an academic degree, or job ,or promotion etc for which you’re not qualified. It’s sui juris with using forged certificates.

CONTRACT.
That’s why the only people who truly care are those, between whom there’s a contractual relationship, and who don’t wish to be cheated. Cheating is a breach of contract from which serious consequences flow. A contract may set out a criterion for copying or it may just use the word ‘plagiarism’ as tut-tuted in defamation. It will usually set out the procedure and range of agreed contractual consequences.

The excerpt must contain the imprint of original literary, scientific, philosophical or creative work which is being passed off.

The stakes are high either way. If you wrongly eg; expel a twenty year old student for plagiarism you'll be responsible for topping-up their meal-ticket-for-life, not just loss of earnings, but loss of pension and any medical treatment consequent upon suicide attempts, psychiatric care for PTSD and therapy for depression and anxiety – and that’s just the special damages. The general damages – for distress, pain and suffering, loss of the amenities of life, of joy, of hope, for blighted ambitions, especially where you’ve doubled down, refused to listen to reason, rejected their lawyer’s proposals of a reasonable compromise and put the poor child through a punishing trial even after you see her wheeled into court in a wheelchair, well, the general damages alone can be huge.

I think you can see that ethics are neither here nor there, and that in any western democratic country contracts can be litigated and professional bodies, are subject their own rules which are supervised by the Courts.

Not every person's unsusceptible to social and consensus pressure, many have pointed out that poor old 8Letters isn’t. Many aren't. His ‘confession’ was obtained under torture. I'm not susceptible, that's why the vulnerable paid me to resist it on their behalf. It can be done. Often nothing more is necessary than the response in Arkell v Pressdram. Of course, it cuts both ways.

Arkell v. Pressdram – Letters of Note

My responses to your other points are implicit in the above, you can pick them out.

Vagueness and penalising retropectve legislation are constitutional matters in the USA and countries with constitutional courts. Uncertainty is dealt with differently in contractual settings, avoidance, then consideration whether the contract as a whole is severable etc, etc. Defamation obviously does give a bulwark against the expression of social pressures, freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity and defamation. To Turd’s point, Story Idea as in prompt, is different from story idea as in “I went home to my father’s farm to escape during covid. I sat out under an apple tree and apples fell on my head. That got me thinking. I gathered them up and took them home to make jam.” And that part of the story which goes, “I threaded an apple on a piece of string, like with a conker, and started twirling it around my hand. It came to me circular motion, action and reaction vectored on my hand, I looked at the moon transiting the sky in the east and sun ending its daily transit in the west, and thought, ’What if I play around with a few variables’”

Coffee time.

: Edited to remove duplication caused by the Oops function.

 

[XerXesXu]

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Plagiarism
Noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
SIMILAR:
copying
infringement of copyright
piracy
theft
stealing
poaching
appropriation

But I suspect you have your own definitions of those words, too, and like Humpty Dumpty, will define them as you will for your own purpose.

Or this: https://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

Look up 'Naive', it's not an unpleasant term. It simply means lacking knowledge in a specific domain. You're naive, in the nicest possible way. see #103.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Look up 'Naive', it's not an unpleasant term. It simply means lacking knowledge in a specific domain. You're naive, in the nicest possible way. see #103.

So, it would be perfectly okay for you if I took, let's say, a couple of hundred words from one of your stories, changed maybe ten per cent or so to my character's names, a bit of my dialogue (because I don't like your dialogue); and justified it on the basis that I know fuck all about the Philippines, and dropped the whole kerbang into one of my stories? No attribution, obviously, nor permission.

But you'd be fine with that, no complaints?

Because, in essence, that's what you're saying here - that plagiarism is perfectly okay if someone wants to do it, just because they're a lazy shit who couldn't be bothered writing their own words.

This is a matter of writers' ethics, not law.

 

[XerXesXu]

So, it would be perfectly okay for you if I took, let's say, a couple of hundred words from one of your stories, changed maybe ten per cent or so to my character's names, a bit of my dialogue (because I don't like your dialogue); and justified it on the basis that I know fuck all about the Philippines, and dropped the whole kerbang into one of my stories? No attribution, obviously, nor permission.

But you'd be fine with that, no complaints?

Because, in essence, that's what you're saying here - that plagiarism is perfectly okay if someone wants to do it, just because they're a lazy shit who couldn't be bothered writing their own words.

This is a matter of writers' ethics, not law.

You make my point very well. Your belief that my caring has any legal significance in law is wrong. That's a naive belief. In fact, I don't care, go ahead. I've seen my works, free on Smashwords, being sold elsewhere. I don't care. I don't even recite my right to be acknowledged as author of a work (a moral right in copyright law which survives after the copyright period) at the head of my works.

I don't care that scavengers go through my dustbin and take the plastic and metal to sell. I could accumulate it and sell it myself, but I don't. Whether I care doesn't affect the law. That rubbish is mine and only persons with permission may take it. That won't change whether I care to enforce that right.

If I did care about you extracting a few hundred words and doing as you suggest, that wouldn't change the law. It doesn't matter that you did it as a short-cut. You've copied over 50% of other people's work, if they don't care why should I care about 10%. You're different, you care if someone copies ... well you don't quite know how to quantify or qualify it ... it's the very idea that somebody should copy a vague portion of your works that makes you shout angrily 'something should be done about it.' Courts of law are not an echo chamber for the choleric. They're generally quiet, disciplined places where one voice is heard at a time, all arguments are pursued with rigour and intensity and judged rationally, the judgement given with reasons for the findings of fact and findings of law. That's why 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it' is so risible. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could express an opinion on that basis, they're naive. Judges are'nt. A judge must be able to articulate the law and connect the evidence to the law and say why the burden of proof is met or not met.

This is not the best platform to invoke writer's ethics, that'll have raised a few chuckles, but they're irrelevant. Echo chambers also exist because it's comforting to hear your opinions reinforced and repeated by others.

 

[Jmanchu]

I've had fun with ChatGPT. I've thrown some of the dumbest shit I could think of and some of the crap that it spewed out was gold. It's also helped me come up with title ideas for a lot of my WIP stories.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sorry, I somehow missed your post.
There’re two legal situations where allegations of plagiarism can become litigious, contract and tort, specifically defamation.

TORT
Starting with DEFAMATION, suppose 8Letters walks into his weekly creative writers meet up, the pub goes quiet, all the other members turn their backs to him. They cut him dead, he hears whispers of ‘Plagiarist’ and tut-tuts of disapproval. He thinks, "SimonD and EB, those bastards have 'lowered me in the estimation of write thinking people'." (Couldn't resist that pun).

He could sue them in defamation. Wherever the burden of proof lies, a jurisdictional thing, the Court’d have to decide the criterion for a. plagiarism and b. whether the weight of evidence has or hasn’t met that criterion, depending upon whom the burden of proof lies. "I don't know the criterion, but I know it's been/not been exceeded when I see it' won't cut the mustard.'

If, to play with your analogy a bit more, 8Letters were to sue me for defamation, based on my description of his conduct as plagiarism, he'd lose in an American court. No doubt about it. Truth is a defense. I'd point to the lines that were exactly copied, his admission that he did it (he even used the term "ripped"), and the fact that I was giving my own honest assessment of what he did. I'd win every time. Plus, he would be unable to prove injury or damages against me, because any injury that was caused to his reputation occurred as a result of his own disclosure of what he did rather than by anything I said. Nobody cares what my opinion is, but nearly everyone who has weighed in on this issue agrees with me and not you, which ought to tell you something, since plagiarism is a matter of honor and reputation rather than legal liability.

If he had done a similar degree of copying and passing off in, say, an academic journal, he would be criticized for plagiarism. To my recollection there is no minimum-quantity requirement for plagiarism. Academics and authors have gotten in trouble for relatively small amounts of copying the works of authors and passing them off as their own. Plagiarism in this regard is different from copyright infringement, where the amount of copying is a significant factor in establishing whether infringement has occurred.

The American Psychology Association's statement on plagiarism is very simple and not quantity-based (Ethical Principles 8:11): "Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally." I think other professional and academic bodies have similar standards. Under this standard, ANY passing off is unethical and should be rightly criticized. Going back to this case, 8Letters cannot claim that the words he borrowed were simply generic, because his use of them was an admission that they were not. He used them because, by his own admission, he was looking for a way to express sexual conduct, couldn't do it himself, so took someone else's work. Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's an excerpt from the American Historical Association'statement:

" Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another’s language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without subsequent attribution. Borrowing unexamined primary source references from a secondary work without citing that work is likewise inappropriate. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others." (Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct sec. 4 (emphasis added)).

There is no quantum requirement. The lifting of another's exact wording is plagiarism.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I can't believe this is still being debated. As Simon said, plagiarism is much more about integrity and ethics than legal liability. No one here was suing 8letters. There was no widespread outrage either. Most people just expressed some displeasure and criticism. All 8letters really had to do was to say: Sorry, I fucked up, I'll correct my mistake. Or even defend his position. Instead, he acted out in a juvenile way in my opinion. I said it once before and I'll repeat it again. If he still finds Literotica interesting, he should man up, admit he messed up, and republish all his stories, with necessary corrections of course. No one should give him any crap after that. Yet instead of that, it is being perpetuated here that the AH somehow betrayed 8letters, that he was chased away by us who should have been grateful to him for something? I think he mentioned that he was surprised that people were judging him after all the goodwill he acquired here, or something like that. Again, juvenile.

 

[Voboy]

I can't believe this is still being debated. As Simon said, plagiarism is much more about integrity and ethics than legal liability.

It's not "being debated."

It's just XXX talking to himself. He does that a lot. He's the only one here who doesn't grasp the ethics of plagiarism and insists on talking about it legally.

Might not be worthwhile to respond to him, since he's having a different conversation than the rest of us.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd consider academic work to be something different than non-fiction, but anyway... Some journals like Nature (if I remember correctly) are even firmer in their rules. They consider papers to be the property of the journal they were published in, and even reject work that contains a single sentence previously written by the same authors in another paper. Especially for general sections like 'Introduction', this can be a real pain in the backside.

Agreed that the plagiarism standards apply somewhat differently in the case of fiction, but the differences lie chiefly in the use of ideas. In academia, you can't pass of either the exact language or the ideas of another in your own work. Both are plagiarism. But in fiction, I think the copyright idea/expression distinction applies. You're generally free to take ideas of a work of fiction and remake them into your own creative expression, without fear of infringement or accusation of plagiarism. People do that all the time here at Literotica and nobody bats an eye about it.

 

[XerXesXu]

If, to play with your analogy a bit more, 8Letters were to sue me for defamation, based on my description of his conduct as plagiarism, he'd lose in an American court. No doubt about it. Truth is a defense. I'd point to the lines that were exactly copied, his admission that he did it (he even used the term "ripped"), and the fact that I was giving my own honest assessment of what he did. I'd win every time. Plus, he would be unable to prove injury or damages against me, because any injury that was caused to his reputation occurred as a result of his own disclosure of what he did rather than by anything I said. Nobody cares what my opinion is, but nearly everyone who has weighed in on this issue agrees with me and not you, which ought to tell you something, since plagiarism is a matter of honor and reputation rather than legal liability.

If he had done a similar degree of copying and passing off in, say, an academic journal, he would be criticized for plagiarism. To my recollection there is no minimum-quantity requirement for plagiarism. Academics and authors have gotten in trouble for relatively small amounts of copying the works of authors and passing them off as their own. Plagiarism in this regard is different from copyright infringement, where the amount of copying is a significant factor in establishing whether infringement has occurred.

The American Psychology Association's statement on plagiarism is very simple and not quantity-based (Ethical Principles 8:11): "Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally." I think other professional and academic bodies have similar standards. Under this standard, ANY passing off is unethical and should be rightly criticized. Going back to this case, 8Letters cannot claim that the words he borrowed were simply generic, because his use of them was an admission that they were not. He used them because, by his own admission, he was looking for a way to express sexual conduct, couldn't do it himself, so took someone else's work. Res ipsa loquitur.

'own honest assessment' but negligent, almost reckless assessment, you had no regard to the law. You admit the defamatory words, an error in law as to their import does not make them true, but in the US, the initial, legal, burden on proof may fall on the Plaintiff, but the tactical burden of proof arises out of the evidence, the admission that he did it raises the issue of plagiarism, it doesn't conclude it. Yes, he could prove you caused the damage, his innocent admission will not negate your defamatory characterisation of it, do not assume that 8Letters is a psychologist in practice or indeed subject to any professional body that regulates his porn. I could run on and on.

Are you a member of one? The North American Association of Writers of Bizarre Pornography perhaps? How does it define plagiarism? If neither of your porn is regulated by a professional body what's the relevance of the rules of bodies you're not regulated by. If you got the psychs regulator along she'd be asked why she purports to regulate porn. My guess is she'd say 'Oh we don't, we regulate psychologists ... and why.' You won't get any professional body to say that they regulate porn. You'll probably be astounded and disappointed when they list the specific reason they have for regulating copying and citation - mischief-based reasons. You'll be thrown back on arguing mischief-based reasons of general application. What's the mischief? What's the criterion for determining mischief in porn? "I don't know, but I know it when I see it.' That won't cut the mustard for the reasons already discussed.

Enough. Like EB, you're naive in this respect, your domain is teddy bears, incest and commas. There you're an authority, I hang on your every post on those topics.

 

[djrip]

Sorry, I somehow missed your post.
There’re two legal situations where allegations of plagiarism can become litigious, contract and tort, specifically defamation.

TORT
Starting with DEFAMATION, suppose 8Letters walks into his weekly creative writers meet up, the pub goes quiet, all the other members turn their backs to him. They cut him dead, he hears whispers of ‘Plagiarist’ and tut-tuts of disapproval. He thinks, "SimonD and EB, those bastards have 'lowered me in the estimation of write thinking people'." (Couldn't resist that pun).

He could sue them in defamation. Wherever the burden of proof lies, a jurisdictional thing, the Court’d have to decide the criterion for a. plagiarism and b. whether the weight of evidence has or hasn’t met that criterion, depending upon whom the burden of proof lies. "I don't know the criterion, but I know it's been/not been exceeded when I see it' won't cut the mustard.'

We all recycle words, even 92% of the words, not Cliches, words, used by Shakespeare had been used before. There's no evidence that he coined any of the evocative phrases for which he's famous, he picked them up and ran with them. Anyone can do that. A recycled rose can smell as sweet.

So, where will the Court draw a line so that the court can understand why it's ‘reprehensible’ copying? 'I just feel it in my bones' won't fly.

Consider the phrase, ‘story idea’. It can be an idea for a story, sometimes called a story prompt, you’ll see discussion of this in LC68’s prompt swop thread, and his expectation of how those who pick up a prompt should seek permission, acknowledge etc. Those are rules of courtesy, his thread, his rules type of thing. They’re unenforceable, anyone can pick up a prompt and run with it. Anyone can pick up a whole story and run with it - a ‘West Side Story.’ Lots of Shakespeare’s whole plots get regularly recycled in a contemporary setting to great literary acclaim. I see Othello’s being recycled in the contemporary dress of the culture wars. No problem. Shakespeare never had copyright anyway.

If it’s not filching words, or evocative expressions, or premise, or title, these have always fallen, immediately, into the public domain - what is it? It’s stealing another person’s original work with intent to obtain some benefit from another by deception, such as an academic degree, or job ,or promotion etc for which you’re not qualified. It’s sui juris with using forged certificates.

CONTRACT.
That’s why the only people who truly care are those, between whom there’s a contractual relationship, and who don’t wish to be cheated. Cheating is a breach of contract from which serious consequences flow. A contract may set out a criterion for copying or it may just use the word ‘plagiarism’ as tut-tuted in defamation. It will usually set out the procedure and range of agreed contractual consequences.

The excerpt must contain the imprint of original literary, scientific, philosophical or creative work which is being passed off.

The stakes are high either way. If you wrongly eg; expel a twenty year old student for plagiarism you'll be responsible for topping-up their meal-ticket-for-life, not just loss of earnings, but loss of pension and any medical treatment consequent upon suicide attempts, psychiatric care for PTSD and therapy for depression and anxiety – and that’s just the special damages. The general damages – for distress, pain and suffering, loss of the amenities of life, of joy, of hope, for blighted ambitions, especially where you’ve doubled down, refused to listen to reason, rejected their lawyer’s proposals of a reasonable compromise and put the poor child through a punishing trial even after you see her wheeled into court in a wheelchair, well, the general damages alone can be huge.

I think you can see that ethics are neither here nor there, and that in any western democratic country contracts can be litigated and professional bodies, are subject their own rules which are supervised by the Courts.

Not every person's unsusceptible to social and consensus pressure, many have pointed out that poor old 8Letters isn’t. Many aren't. His ‘confession’ was obtained under torture. I'm not susceptible, that's why the vulnerable paid me to resist it on their behalf. It can be done. Often nothing more is necessary than the response in Arkell v Pressdram. Of course, it cuts both ways.

Arkell v. Pressdram – Letters of Note

My responses to your other points are implicit in the above, you can pick them out.

Vagueness and penalising retropectve legislation are constitutional matters in the USA and countries with constitutional courts. Uncertainty is dealt with differently in contractual settings, avoidance, then consideration whether the contract as a whole is severable etc, etc. Defamation obviously does give a bulwark against the expression of social pressures, freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity and defamation. To Turd’s point, Story Idea as in prompt, is different from story idea as in “I went home to my father’s farm to escape during covid. I sat out under an apple tree and apples fell on my head. That got me thinking. I gathered them up and took them home to make jam.” And that part of the story which goes, “I threaded an apple on a piece of string, like with a conker, and started twirling it around my hand. It came to me circular motion, action and reaction vectored on my hand, I looked at the moon transiting the sky in the east and sun ending its daily transit in the west, and thought, ’What if I play around with a few variables’”

Coffee time.

: Edited to remove duplication caused by the Oops function.

What a long way to say "I don't understand any of this"

 

[XerXesXu]

It's not "being debated."

It's just XXX talking to himself. He does that a lot. He's the only one here who doesn't grasp the ethics of plagiarism and insists on talking about it legally.

Might not be worthwhile to respond to him, since he's having a different conversation than the rest of us.

No, I'm talking to you. You're not talking about ethics, you're talking about the status of your digestion and what you believe ethics be - that which gives you indigestion. Your ethics, nobody else's. If there's articulable mischief it's legal, if it's not, it's hot air.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I can't believe this is still being debated. As Simon said, plagiarism is much more about integrity and ethics than legal liability. No one here was suing 8letters. There was no widespread outrage either. Most people just expressed some displeasure and criticism. All 8letters really had to do was to say: Sorry, I fucked up, I'll correct my mistake. Or even defend his position. Instead, he acted out in a juvenile way in my opinion. I said it once before and I'll repeat it again. If he still finds Literotica interesting, he should man up, admit he messed up, and republish all his stories, with necessary corrections of course. No one should give him any crap after that. Yet instead of that, it is being perpetuated here that the AH somehow betrayed 8letters, that he was chased away by us who should have been grateful to him for something? I think he mentioned that he was surprised that people were judging him after all the goodwill he acquired here, or something like that. Again, juvenile.

I'd also note that at this point, the person doing the most harm to 8letters' reputation is the one purporting to be his defender.

The way these things typically pan out: somebody fucks up and gets a hostile reaction, they leave in a huff, in a few weeks or months the ruckus dies down and people forget what the fuss was about, person comes back - maybe there's a token apology, maybe not - and then mostly folk move on and act like it never happened, unless that person does something to resurrect the issue.

Right now we would normally be moving into the "ruckus dies down" stage. But reviving the topic in this thread, and prodding others to defend their criticisms of 8letters and to keep on restating the facts of the matter, prevents that from happening. Do that for long enough and a rift that should have healed in time can turn into a festering sore.

I would like to believe that isn't the intended purpose.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'd also note that at this point, the person doing the most harm to 8letters' reputation is the one purporting to be his defender.

The way these things typically pan out: somebody fucks up and gets a hostile reaction, they leave in a huff, in a few weeks or months the ruckus dies down and people forget what the fuss was about, person comes back - maybe there's a token apology, maybe not - and then mostly folk move on and act like it never happened, unless that person does something to resurrect the issue.

Right now we would normally be moving into the "ruckus dies down" stage. But reviving the topic in this thread, and prodding others to defend their criticisms of 8letters and to keep on restating the facts of the matter, prevents that from happening. Do that for long enough and a rift that should have healed in time can turn into a festering sore.

I would like to believe that isn't the intended purpose.

Like I said on the original thread on this topic, what he did was wrong, but I'm not freaking over it. Far worse things have happened on these forums(dead baby thread, anyone?) including cheating scandals that involved a group of authors, and as you said they run their course because people find something knew to get carried away with and the source often lays low.

In this case the person who continues to bring this up has some balls. This is the person who is the first one to act outraged over under age, but used to quote his make believe playmate in his posts and make her sound like a child....on an adult website. Not to mention the behind the scenes creepy behavior I was shown proof of by someone no longer here. So maybe they're the last person that should be playing up the Salem witch hunt game here.

Then we have his bromance partner who keeps defending the former's over rated stance and making himself look bad.

Like the saying says, it takes all kinds and we have them.

But on the topic the only thing I'll say that makes me shake my head is 8letters linked that thread in his bio for why he left, as if saying, see, they're picking on me, which tells me he really doesn't think what he did was wrong. Mystifying, but he's still not the pariah he's being made out to be.

In closing if all of us want it to go away then let the two Puritan accusers talk among themselves, we need not perpetuate it.

 

[HeyAll]

I've been using NovelAI myself for the same reason, and bonus it doesn't shy away from pornography in any way.

Do you pay for a membership or just use the free trial?

 

[HeyAll]

It's a greats supplemental for sure. I've used it to write an academic letter from a Dean the professors, in story that's currently on the backburner.

 

[Voboy]

So. I've read the thread, and here are my revised thoughts.

I can grant that some writers feel the need to use this as a tool to improve.

My feeling is that a lot of posters here think of AI the way they'd think of a beta reader: another "brain" off which to bounce ideas during the draft/development phase of some of their stories. I do not (and would not) do this, in the same way I feel no need for a beta reader, but that's the only way I can charitably imagine a self-respecting writer using AI in a work intended for publication under their own name.

So my new thinking is that writers who use AI are no more "wrong" than writers who use human editors... but that ethically, in the same way you'd credit that human editor (or, I hope, beta reader) publicly, a writer who uses AI should credit that AI.

Thoughts? I'm trying not to be doctrinaire, here. I get that we're living in changing times, technologically. But not ethically. If your work is not your own, you should always cite it.

 

[ecorche]

Many posts here claiming AI isn't creative and warning of plagiarism. I don't think anyone has suggested AI can write anything decent enough that you'd want to plagiarize. I think people are suggesting that it be used as a writing aid, much like Pro Writing Aid, Grammarly, or your spell checker. We all change our stories based on the output of these tools without thinking about it. In the same vein, AI is just another tool to influence changes to our stories.
I found this article discussing how you might use AI to help you with voice, plot, and research.
https://specficwriters.com/a-computer-wrote-my-story/

 

[Voboy]

Many posts here claiming AI isn't creative and warning of plagiarism. I don't think anyone has suggested AI can write anything decent enough that you'd want to plagiarize. I think people are suggesting that it be used as a writing aid, much like Pro Writing Aid, Grammarly, or your spell checker. We all change our stories based on the output of these tools without thinking about it. In the same vein, AI is just another tool to influence changes to our stories.
I found this article discussing how you might use AI to help you with voice, plot, and research.
https://specficwriters.com/a-computer-wrote-my-story/

Not all of us.

Should AI's assistance be cited to the reader? If not, why not?

Fundamentally, this topic is about drawing lines. I'm clear on where I draw mine. I'm curious where others draw theirs.

 

[Demiurging]

Do you pay for a membership or just use the free trial?

I paid for a membership, might reduce my account level soon since I actually use it pretty infrequently.

 

[ecorche]

I recall the movie O Brother Where Art Thou. At the beginning, it credited Ulysses. Does anyone think it would've been plagiarism is the Ulysses credit were absent?
I'll credit inspiration from an AI when every Lit author who writes blowjob stories credits Gerard Damiano.

 

[Voboy]

I recall the movie O Brother Where Art Thou. At the beginning, it credited Ulysses. Does anyone think it would've been plagiarism is the Ulysses credit were absent?
I'll credit inspiration from an AI when every Lit author who writes blowjob stories credits Gerard Damiano.

Okay, but would you credit a beta reader? I'm curious about how and why you'd differentiate.

Presumably, the producers of "O Brother..." did not credit Homer because they HAD to. They credited Homer because they knew they should.

 

[ecorche]

O Brother was probably a bad analogy. I mentioned it as an example of a credit that wasn't necessary. O Brother cited Ulysses so that the few audience members actually familiar with Ulysses could look for the subtle references, and not because O Brother was literally based on it.
You have a good point with beta readers. They will provide feedback that will change the direction of your story. The difference is that they're doing this based on skill and experience. They should be acknowledged for their time and valuable insights.
I don't view ChatGPT as a beta reader. It's more like a thesaurus. It gives me a bunch of options to consider. Most of them are crap because, unlike beta readers, ChatGPT has no skills or experience to guide its suggestions.
I've never read a story where the author credited a thesaurus, or a spelling and grammar tool, except in jest.
But this is a good conversation. There is a line somewhere for crediting those who help craft our stories, whether its a human or a tool should make no difference. While the legal line for plagiarism is relatively clear, the moral or ethical line, where you credit someone or something just to Do The Right Thing, is less distinct.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Fundamentally, this topic is about drawing lines.

I think this is the whole point. Whatever Laurel decides about "AI" generated content, it is still going to be an arbitrary line. There will be people who want to use their gadgets and there will be those who prefer the old fashioned way. It will more or less come down to our personal lines, since I suspect that it shouldn't be too hard to go around any restrictions set by Literotica, as detecting AI generated text can't be easy or simple. Detecting computer generated moves in chess is what comes to my mind first, and I know how hard it is to prove it.
Once again, whoever wants to use that stuff can use it as far as I am concerned, but the idea of reading stories that didn't come out of someone's kinky mind, but out of a pattern recognizing program, makes me cringe. I care far less about AI being credited or not, or if the story can really be considered fully as author's intellectual property or not.