Use of AI as a reviewer.

[Andreas_Kreuz]

I personall think, that the current wave of AI is the worst marketing scam in the history of IT. (E.g. explained here).
I write, because it is a fun hobby. So the use of AI to author stories is silly to me.

However I found, that I can use AI (i.e. GPT and bard) as reviewers. With a quote "Please critisize the following text in terms of style and creative writing: your text here ...". You can get very good insight in your own wiriting.

However I had both GPT and Bard review a story of mine (The part without sex).
GPT shredded it. Bard liked it.
So I made a counter test. I copied some paragraphs from James Joyces "Portrait of an Artist" and had the engine critisize it.
GPT liked Joyce. Bard shredded it.

Still both engines came up with useful suggestions. So, when you do not find a reviewer, then you can try the AI engines.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Still both engines came up with useful suggestions. So, when you do not find a reviewer, then you can try the AI engines.

There have been multiple threads about AI recently.

The site policy prohibits its use, so this suggestion is unwise.

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

There have been multiple threads about AI recently. The site policy prohibits its use

Policy says texts have to be written by a human. Does not say reviews must be made by humans. I believe getting suggestions about better writing can help many new authors and improve quality on the site.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Policy says texts have to be written by a human. Does not say reviews must be made by humans. I believe getting suggestions about better writing can help many new authors and improve quality on the site.

You need to read in on the recent threads. Many people are getting stories rejected when they're saying they've not used AI, so to advocate its use for editing is asking for trouble.

I understand your belief (but don't share it), but you really should come up to speed with the current debate, is all I'm saying.

 

[Jmanchu]

I personall think, that the current wave of AI is the worst marketing scam in the history of IT. (E.g. explained here).
I write, because it is a fun hobby. So the use of AI to author stories is silly to me.

However I found, that I can use AI (i.e. GPT and bard) as reviewers. With a quote "Please critisize the following text in terms of style and creative writing: your text here ...". You can get very good insight in your own wiriting.

However I had both GPT and Bard review a story of mine (The part without sex).
GPT shredded it. Bard liked it.
So I made a counter test. I copied some paragraphs from James Joyces "Portrait of an Artist" and had the engine critisize it.
GPT liked Joyce. Bard shredded it.

Still both engines came up with useful suggestions. So, when you do not find a reviewer, then you can try the AI engines.

I've tried it. The bias a lot of these AI will come into reviewing a piece depending on how you phrase your prompt will determine its "opinion." They can give good insights (don't get me wrong really interesting and helpful insights), but it can also be random, or unfairly harsh with its criticism. Like if you tell it to tell you the weaknesses of a piece or writing style, it will likelier be biased against it, potentially finding faults that might not even be there like everything can be faulty. If you ask for strengths, the same AI can be praising the same things it found fault with, so you have to take what the AI tells you with a grain of salt. There's also the potential problem of it not remembering context properly, like it can mix up characters in its review or analysis.

 

[EmilyMiller]

There are humans who can help (not this one - I have a crazy review backlog). But at least you won’t get AI craziness and your stories in publishing purgatory.

Em

 

[samhasstories]

If I were writing for business or academia I might be tempted to use AI to apply a professional and grammatical polish. But for fiction, no. I want it to read like it's written by a human. It should have voice and tone and character, and not sound like an amalgam of everything else that's been written and ingested into an AI algorithm. At least, that's the goal.

 

[Duleigh]

AI is ridiculous. It's programmed by college freshmen for extra credit and a few bucks so the world is putting everything in the hands of first year Art History majors. Using AI for anything in the world of amateur writing is basically lazy. Yeah it's a tool, so is a chainsaw, use one of those to write a story.

Keyboard and soul, that's all we need.

 

[KeithD]

I don't want any review program to be messing around with preserving my voice in my stories. So, the only such help I employ in review is spellcheck.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

This is AI.. You want to trust that algorithm with your words?

 

[samhasstories]

Human Centiboob?

 

[jaF0]

Policy says texts have to be written by a human. Does not say reviews must be made by humans. I believe getting suggestions about better writing can help many new authors and improve quality on the site.

" Before using any work on Literotica for any purpose (including training AI or any other AI-related use) you are required by law to contact the author to request permission to use that work. "


Taken literally, that indicates you would need to contact the author and ask their permission to use a machine generated review.

Also, a review is a 'work' of sorts and contains text (in your words) so the policy applies.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-ai

 

[StillStunned]

This is AI.. You want to trust that algorithm with your words?

I bet she has trouble finding sweaters that fit.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I bet she has trouble finding sweaters that fit.

Sure she just buys them in twos. Pullovers on top and button up for the middle.

 

[mirafrida]

Personally, i'm glad James Joyce stuck by his own artistic judgements

 

[MillieDynamite]

You aren't actually using the review in the story. However, AI is fully capable of fabrication. A lawyer drew a sanction using AI to prepare his opening statements because he sighted a non-existent case, case number, court of ruling, the law book (which was real), and the page where it was supposed to be located. Of course, opposing counsel looked up the case, and it didn't exist. How can you trust the review to be honest?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

You aren't actually using the review in the story. However, AI is fully capable of fabrication. A lawyer drew a sanction using AI to prepare his opening statements because he sighted a non-existent case, case number, court of ruling, the law book (which was real), and the page where it was supposed to be located. Of course, opposing counsel looked up the case, and it didn't exist. How can you trust the review to be honest?

In that specific example, I'd question the intelligence of the lawyer more than the intelligence of the AI. just a thought.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Apparently, he'd put off his preparation for the case. I believe the bar in the state he practices (or practiced maybe) doesn't allow AI to prepare anything.

In that specific example, I'd question the intelligence of the lawyer more than the intelligence of the AI. just a thought.

 

[djrip]

" Before using any work on Literotica for any purpose (including training AI or any other AI-related use) you are required by law to contact the author to request permission to use that work. "


Taken literally, that indicates you would need to contact the author and ask their permission to use a machine generated review.

Also, a review is a 'work' of sorts and contains text (in your words) so the policy applies.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-ai

He's not talking about publishing reviews written by AI. Nor is he talking about training an AI on other authors' work from Literotica. He is talking about asking an AI to analyze his own work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This is AI.. You want to trust that algorithm with your words?

The algorithm isn't doing anything to his words except reading them. What he's doing is exactly the same as asking a stranger on the street, "hey what do you think of this?" Might get valuable feedback, might get crap. Either way, no change occurs in the text unless he decides to make a change.

AI's not a disease that will infect a piece of writing just by being in the same room with it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

He's not talking about publishing reviews written by AI. Nor is he talking about training an AI on other authors' work from Literotica. He is talking about asking an AI to analyze his own work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The algorithm isn't doing anything to his words except reading them. What he's doing is exactly the same as asking a stranger on the street, "hey what do you think of this?" Might get valuable feedback, might get crap. Either way, no change occurs in the text unless he decides to make a change.

AI's not a disease that will infect a piece of writing just by being in the same room with it.

My point exactly. No way to know...

 

[djrip]

My point exactly. No way to know...

Well the way to know is to read the analysis and come to a judgement about its value. Same as for the guy on the street.

 

[Duleigh]

I bet she has trouble finding sweaters that fit.

Imaging finding a proper bra

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

Well the way to know is to read the analysis and come to a judgement about its value. Same as for the guy on the street.

Now after playing with it a bit more I have come to the conlusion, that the value is low. If the two leading AI engines completely contradict each other on the quality aspects of James Joyce and my amateur writing, then the advice is worthless,. One tells you to use shorter phrases, the other longer.

 

[alohadave]

Now after playing with it a bit more I have come to the conlusion, that the value is low. If the two leading AI engines completely contradict each other on the quality aspects of James Joyce and my amateur writing, then the advice is worthless,. One tells you to use shorter phrases, the other longer.

Like anything else, the different AIs are going to have individual biases.

People have different and opposing feelings on Joyce, and you wouldn't say that people are worthless for analysis. You take their preferences and biases into account when you read what they have to say.

 

[XerXesXu]

In that specific example, I'd question the intelligence of the lawyer more than the intelligence of the AI. just a thought.

He'd have been well advised to do what was advised in the small print below his bot. Current bots aren't expert systems and don't claim to be. But already it's claimed Gemini is approaching the performance of an expert system, albeit, still hallucinating on occasions, though rather less. Given the speed of evolution I can't imagine how they'll perform in five years.