all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 1 week ago

Plot twist: someone wins first prize and then there's a cheating scandal because it turns out they didn't use AI.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    I hope they disclose that so I can avoid these books. I can accept AI with code and some other stuff but not with art and writing. I’ll never accept that. It’s so wrong and feels like I’m being fooled reading something written by basically no one.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    The industry is getting desperate if they're paying people to use it now

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Just what we need!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)
    22 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 27 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    The Prix Pascal de Littérature IA

    To be better known as "The Sloppy".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I think this is a good idea in that it will let me know which books to avoid. 😁 I'd rather read crap fanfic from unknown human writers than the most brilliant work ever written in the history of the universe done by AI.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    So the Shit prize...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

    Books that are highly valued for their exceptional quality until they are identified as being largely written by a.i. is a testimony to humans' vanity and literature circles' lack of humility.

    ref :
    Thélyson Orélien https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9lyson_Or%C3%A9lien

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    There's a significant population who uses art to form a bond with the author's humanity, transcending time and space. What was the artist feeling when they made this? What did they hope I would feel? Finding out that the artist doesn't exist takes away half the work's appeal instantly.

    What did the bot feel when it made this? What did it hope I would feel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Hate to break it to you, but a large portion of fiction are written by ghost authors, lots of men use feminine names to write Romance novels, since they sell better with a female name. Scifi they use masculine names if they’re women. You’re being manipulated in most cases anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Don't really care, so long as there's a human behind it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    Pardon? You mention you want to feel all this stuff, but it’s not even there in the first place. It’s just made for money.

    Do you think an author cares much about the content when they’re writing 90% of someone else’s story? Because this is common as well.

    Your author already doesn’t likely exist, your entire point was that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I'll rephrase a bit--I do care when an author is putting emotional content into the writing. If they not attempting to do that, well, it's probably not a story I'd read, either, because it would be boring. Even Jack London, who famously hated his job and was only in it for the money, wrote impressively emotional content from his human perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Very soon, when robots will indeed have feelings, you will be able to discuss that with them. Already, some humans, halfway between geniuses and psychotics, propose that a few earthly artificial beings are sentient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Code up an LLM from scratch and it'll quickly disabuse you of any notion that it has feelings. It can definitely look like it has feelings, but it's a machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    The human machine that i am appreciate your passion and naivety. Wishing you joy and happiness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I knew there was a reason you were here and not just off having this conversation with chatgpt. 🙂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    do you appreciate our conversation ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I do. Have some upvotes. Someone voted you down, but it wasn't me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    LLMs are not the ultimate evolution of artificial beings and emergent properties shows that simple systems can produce more complex capacities.

    i want to believe in a better future although science gives us reasons to believe otherwise.
    We humans are limited and mortal so having artificial bodies to give us eternal life and extended capacities could be good ... but it also could be a disaster if billionaire psychopaths were the ones to get these powers before good people do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    The cuckky. Because you just sat there and watched DeepSeek write it for you.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    "Oatmeal prize awards honors blandest wastes of space"

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/books@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 25 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    This is so fucking stupid. There is zero value (intelectual/artistic or other) in AI generated text.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

    Ya, is it called the participation award?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    That would almost be appropriate, except they're not even participating. They're just prompting LLMs to do the participating for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I think this will hopefully maybe draw some line between using it for something like proofreading (advanced spellcheck basically) and generated content. I wouldn’t like generated content, but if it’s used as a tool like photoshop to expedite some stuff, that shouldn’t be frowned on. We already rely on tech that does that, and it would still go past a set of eyes (hopefully).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Gotta be honest, I've reached the point where I no longer think there are any good and ethical uses for LLMs. They're built on gargantuan theft, they hurt people's minds, they're addictive, and they make everything they touch worse.

    Burn the companies that make them to the ground and salt the earth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago*

    What about something build with a local model with only a dictionary and thesaurus? All those points apply to something as simple as a spellcheck, or any other tool that modernizes our workflow. Any tool can be abused.

    I think most authors would rather write new stories than read through their completed ones 6x looking for errors again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    So... not actually written. Though AI did steal from authors!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    You heard about ghost writing, now get ready for cuck writing!

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/tech@piefed.world view that post
    [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    It had better be an NFT

  • source