You may no longer post AI-generated artwork or writing. Here are some exceptions:
Please ask if you have an edge case not listed here.
We would prefer that you post bad, hand-made content, or images that aren’t yours than something that you made with Grok. It is unpleasant, and ruins the atmosphere.
Has anyone ever submitted anything AI generated, apart from some random images in that one guy’s post about Marxism or something?
Not really but I’m just setting this precedent now. I went on Royal Road and my god
Why ban AI but still allow exceptions? AI summaries are usually just as bad, and often misrepresent peoples written words. Banning it would incentivize people to actually present themselves in their own words, which would be much more a much more intentional kind of communication you’re aiming to foster on the website.
Some with the other two exceptions, if people are using chatbots for anything other than maybe data collection it is simply uninspired, and even then the data can often be misleading (Though Grok is a lot more thorough, you’re still supporting Big Data Centers).
I think if you make exceptions for it now, you’re leaving the door open for future misuse or sympathy.
Because sometimes it really comes in handy, and I don’t think people are going to use it often. Sometimes you have a big mess of a project and you want to explain it to some guy quickly
Essays are supposed to be finished human interfaces
AI can be used to come up with mind-blowing ideas if used as a second opinion rather than an author
Please no exceptions, I think it is good etiquette for everything written here to be done by a person
When has AI come up with a mind blowing idea? Lmao
I used it to come up with a definition of intelligence using Zipf’s Tool Analogy, and it came up with probably the best one out there.
You have to feed it thinkers to come up with interesting ideas. Ex: “Use Marx to critique Kaczynski.”
The composition for the “What is this diddyblud doing on the calculator” song
Awww, thank you! That warms my heart.
Couldn’t you just apply those contrasts yourself if you felt so inclined? If AI isn’t necessary to achieve that contrast, then again what purpose does it serve to allow it?
Expedience is almost never a sign of quality, especially in this case.
I’m not interested in what an LLM can output because it is a simplifying device with a bias towards a simplified, averaged perspective. If it has insight that is humanly rare or impossible that’s an accidental artifact of the process. The models are founded on imitation, and the models are lower resolution than what they imitate.
But, I think it could still be intellectually useful if you applied it to a large volume of input, probably with low “heat”/creativity. If it could scan through a thousand books for me and scan for a dozen or so cues that indicate topics I might find interesting, that would be useful. If it could supplement the table of contents for a book with a sketch of cross-chapter connections, that would be useful. I’m aware that this sort of thing isn’t exactly running the models on the edge of their capabilities, you could probably use scripts to preprocess and then run a tiny local model to get most of the value without paying for any name brand model.
Why haven’t I done this yet? I’ve other stuff to do, and I can still easily find a ton of books I want to read in their entirety. If the quality of candidate books starts to wane in a few years maybe that will put some pressure on me to build and optimize a truly indulgent librarian system.
I can see the purpose in so far as its useful for Data Collection, but then again you’re playing into their hands. The reason it is even necessary for Data Retrieval is because Google is so cucked that it refuses to show you meaningful results, even when you type in specifically what you’re searching for. I reckon the AI companies know this and capitalize on this as a selling point.
But as to the point on scanning books, it’s not going to interpret things like any normal human will. In a normal healthy society you receive recommendations in person from people who talk to you, get to know you, and reference something relative to the discussion at hand. Without that hands on feedback, any information you receive is going to be biased in an ill favored way, not to mention these AI companies will start being payed to advertise and promote certain books/information.
Take for example their buying up and scanning books, they are monopolizing information, and any usage of their product will result in either poor or deliberately skewed feedback. So from an Ethical Standpoint I don’t know why we would promote it as well, especially with this websites clear demand for more thoughtful hands on engagement. Allowing AI fosters quite the opposite.
AI is designed to further erode and destroy Communities and drive us away from personal engagement in the real world, and make it to where the only feedback we will really engage with will be AI, for even our personal interactions will just be with other people using AI.
Think of it this way:
When you read a book, you spend 8 hours, and pick up maybe 16 significant ideas. 16 “gists.” The rest is forgotten.
But say you copy and paste each chapter into ChatGPT and summarize it. You spend one hour, pick up 14 gists, and then have time for seven more books.
So even if the AI doesn’t capture all of the nuances or even lies to you, you are many times more economical than the methodical reader. You pick up more important information per unit of time.
So the methodical learner has less knowledge, but it’s more refined. Whereas the economical learner has less refined knowledge, but knows more important things. The methodical learner can be taken seriously, but has less to say. Whereas the eclectic learner will not be taken as seriously, yet has more to say.
Apply this to summaries: many gists communicated with little expended effort. It’s not proper reading material, but in a pinch it is acceptable.
Yes, but how you build onto those premises is entirely relative to your own way of thinking, and requires an intimate reading of the book yourself. Those 16 significant ideas are developed over the course of every sentence, but if somebody else is reading it, particularly AI, the end result is going to be entirely different, and more than likely less developed.
Furthermore, you’re not taking time to really sit with those ideas and ferment them, you’re running it through AI to get the quick gist and missing out on the entire process of understanding. Imagine if I tried to brew some type of Alcohol with Prolonged fermentation, and then the same alcohol again but with a more scientific and measured pressurizing process that allegedly speeds up the result. Any connoisseur would naturally taste the difference and tell you why the natural more traditional ways are superior, but if you keep relying on the mechanical brews you’re never going to develop that sense of taste and dedication.
It’s the same with most modern agriculture, like Bill Gates growing meat in a lab. Is this meat healthier or better for us because it was developed in this way? Absolutely not, there are so many essential nutrients missing and myriad microscopic aspects that some crook in a lab is never going to be able to imitate. Amino Acids, microorganisms, etc.
You’re not being economical either. The difference is the man who buys a cheap Coat that will deteriorate in 6 months or the many who does his own research and selects a Fine Wool Coat that will last years, possibly even beyond his own life. Knowledge accumulated via expedience is cheap and undeveloped. We are not machines, we are Men, and Men ought to take time to develop their thoughts.
Knowing facts and being able to apply them are two grossly unequal qualities.
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 punches one time, but the man who has practiced One Punch 10,000 times.
And furthermore, you can be eclectic without using AI. Listen to the summaries of somebody who has actually read the content in question, hence the entire purpose of human communication.
How do you screw up summarizing the most important points of a text? The author expounds at length on each thesis, pretty hard for an AI to miss.
You miss nuance but nuance is not important. That’s why it’s nuance, and not a primary point.
Analogies typically confuse more than they illuminate. Think of it like developing a massive product line: wine and cheese and crackers and prosciutto.
An artisan winemaker makes one excellent wine. An economical foodgoods brand makes many decent products. More yum per unit of time.
I’m not saying to make tons of one crappy liquor. That would mean absorbing random, meaningless data and not doing anything interesting with it. Like remembering what Hegel ate for breakfast or something. I’m saying to capture the main points.
Let’s not use this analogy.
I already thought of all this stuff. I’m a perfectionist, that’s why I came to this conclusion.
I care about results – achieving white nationalism. That’s what I’m perfecting towards. Not being 100% right about every single idea.
It is less effort to merely state the wrong answer and then let someone correct you.
Basically, when you’re trying to achieve white nationalism, you need as much IMPORTANT information as possible. So you have to economize between how much you read and how general the categories are.
So book summaries are more important than full readings because you get more gists per unit of time.
Well fuck me, I guess all those famous authors and philosophers and historians who have wrote anywhere over 10 pages in a given book were just padding the information with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Might as well just buy up all the books and scalp them so AI can process them into more “Relevant” information for us. Jesus Christ man, you have to be a Reptile to think this way.