AI checking help

[Andreas_Kreuz]

You know, tools you could write in BASH

These tools could not distinguish between there and their or between where and were.

 

[Britva415]

Who said anything of approving it? I said not to stigmatize it.

Stigmatize == disapprove
Approve == not-disapprove
∴
Not-stigmatize == approve

That's the thought process of how people read what you wrote.

You might point out that line 2 is where there's a fallacy, and you wouldn't be wrong.

So:

Let's re-write the way @EmilyMiller paraphrased you:

you have to not-disapprove of X, and let people do X, or they will do it anyway. Huh?

There.

Now we aren't equating the act of approving with the absence of the act of disapproving.

Yet her actual point still stands.

 

[Stanfield2025]

While I'm against using generative AI to write, I have nothing against using AI to edit, proofread or spot check. It's not what I would do, but editors and beta readers are hard to find so I don't judge. Do what you gotta do to edit.

However,

I knew of an author (who writes great stories, mind you, and has a ton of clout on Lit) who uses ProWritingAid to proofread their work, and I suspect this is why the site royally fucks them over. They use ProWritingAid consistently and always get their work stuck in pending for weeks before the story gets rejected. They use no other AI-adjacent tool.

I don't use any ProWritingAid or anything. I don't even use Grammarly for my work. And so far, no AI flagging bullshit through over 14 submissions. Do what you will with that information.

 

[yano2mch]

Lit does not have a rule about writing with a tractor.

Technically true. But TOS say you have to use your own hands, not a tractor. If you're caught using a tractor i'm sure it would be flagged.

 

[yano2mch]

Stigmatize == disapprove
Approve == not-disapprove
∴
Not-stigmatize == approve

That's the thought process of how people read what you wrote.

So... to go politically hypothetical, if i don't actively say i'm pro Gaza, then i'm anti-Gaza?

If i don't explicitly say i'm anti-government then i'm pro-government?

If i don't explicitly say i'm Anti-cheetos, then i'm pro-cheetos?

Sorry, that's a terrible way to view the world, and then you get purity tests and they try to cancel you if you are one iota out of line like JK Rowling with her position that women are women and can't be men.

Not playing that game.

 

[Bryan_C]

I don't know, but I suspect as long as you don't ask AI to generate anything (everything is your writing) it would probably do a good job at flagging typos, grammar errors, unintended and confusing shifts in POV, that sort of thing. It keeps enough context to know that you meant "won't" when you wrote "wont" which a spell checker won't catch.

 

[Britva415]

to go politically hypothetical, if i don't actively say i'm pro Gaza, then i'm anti-Gaza?

See, you're still trying to "exclude the middle," which is irrelevant to the point that was being made.

I feel like you're playing dumb.

Either one of those is a game. You could be playing one of them, or the other, or both.

 

[StillStunned]

if you are one iota out of line like JK Rowling with her position that women are women and can't be men

Actively funding and supporting anti-trans legislation is "one iota out of line"? Gloating about it?

Sure, she's the victim.

 

[Stanfield2025]

I don't like the idea of just 'write a best selling novel' and publishing it. People really shouldn't start writing until they get experience under their belt. Otherwise you get those that work for hollywood that only know how to write scenes of them sipping coffees in baristas because that's all they know. Other good writers went to war, saw horrors, fought for their lives, experienced loss. And used that as a core mixed with the story they wanted to tell and write.

Plenty of writers haven't gone to war or fought for their lives. You can write stories about experiences you've never had. It's not always easy, but it's plenty possible. Research is a thing. Experience doesn't mean much if the writer hasn't ever put pen to paper. Writing makes your writing better more than anything else. The more you do it (and the more you learn from it), the better you get.

 

[yano2mch]

See, you're still trying to "exclude the middle," which is irrelevant to the point that was being made.

I feel like you're playing dumb.

Either one of those is a game. You could be playing one of them, or the other, or both.

But I'm not playing dumb, and I'm not playing a game. I said if you stigmatize it you probably will push more people to use it than if you didn't. I said it's usable as a tool, but i also don't think you should plagiarize or just use a single prompt and claim credit for it.

I'm the middle. I try to see the world as it is, and take the best parts of it. I also try to see the technology for what it is and while the rules have the meaning intended behind it tend to actually be more harmful then they are useful. I try to see both sides of the argument and then I'll play devil's advocate in order to make points or question things from another view.

But ultimately some things no matter how you try to push it don't fit or work. Calling all AI tools as breaking TOS when you just asked for synonym or suggested they change a comma to a semi-colon is way overreaching, like telling you how many calories you can eat or that you shouldn't put icecream on your pizza.

Really i just want to share things i enjoy and i find interesting, the method of it's creation is moot. If it's enjoyable it's enjoyable and that's what i really care about.

 

[yano2mch]

Actively funding and supporting anti-trans legislation is "one iota out of line"? Gloating about it?

Sure, she's the victim.

Was the legislation about shipping them to concentration camps or something?
Did they lose voting rights?
Did they lose the right to have a bank account?
Did they lose the right to drive?

They should have no more or less rights than anyone else.

And should you really be less sympathetic because she's a successful author? I'd think you'd want her to be more successful. More success becomes more books and stories. You know, without using AI.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I feel like you're playing dumb.

Surley not ?

I'm shocked, shocked to find that this is going on in here!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Let’s invoke Godwin, it’s about time:

“If you stigmatize being a Nazi people will be a Nazi just because to prove you wrong.”

 

[EmilyMiller]

I smell bridge-dweller

 

[Randemtask]

I think the rules are a little too hardlined. Punctuation and spell fixing, or asking it for feedback that doesn't actually change/rewrite the text but makes suggestions shouldn't be rule breaking. Imagine your story getting rejected for AI use, because you changed a comma to a semi-colon...



If you have the hardware and can run it locally, uncensored LLM models can be used. On HuggingFace it's usually uncensored, abliterated and heresy as the keywords of them being opened up and shouldn't reject you for erotica purposes. Mind you the models are..... HUGE.... Way too big honestly. We're talking dozens or hundreds of gigs.

And getting feedback I've fed my own stuff in. Often it will tell you what you already know, but look at things in another light or point out consistences at the same time.

In my experience LLMs are good for asking them to make character profiles of what you've put in, and it will summarize them so you can hopefully be consistent in your later writing (or generating new characters and then you change the details after the template is made).

Thank you for that information. It sounds very interesting. I'd not heard of it before.