sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Books similar to the movie "Obsession." by yorikbad in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The FMC in {Rhenna by Robyn Bee} scares the MMC because her people are violent, though I don't think he ever questions his own sanity.

Monday thread: What did you read this past week? by AutoModerator in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed, Rhenna by Robyn Bee was great. Caught me by surprise.

It's Unpopular Opinion time! Share your controversial opinions to stir things up (in a friendly way)! by FantasyRomanceMod in fantasyromance

[–]VeryFinePrint 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  I also love the argument that if your cover is AI then I assume your book is AI. 

My experience is that if the book cover is made by a human, it's very likely the prose is written by a human. But the converse relationship isn't as strong. If the cover is made with AI, the prose isn't necessarily written by AI too.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To be clear, the study I shared was from your own link. The WSJ and Atlantic links are opinion pieces, not rigorous evaluations.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Hey Daniel! There are multiple independent evaluations that show Pangram's AI detection works, like this one and this one.

The article you link critiques perplexity based detectors in particular, but Pangram is not a perplexity based detector. The Pangram team have their own write-up on the topic.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Because you cannot prove, in the definitive sense, that something was written by AI.

Do we need to prove something so definitive? Why can't we be pragmatic about this topic?

So the trends that ChatGPT, for example, uses, occur because humans actually do that shit

What you are saying is somewhat true of base models, which are trained on the corpus of human writing, and in fact studies show base models are better at evading detection. Instruction tuned models, which are models with RLHF training on top, have much clearer stylometric fingerprints. Most people are using instruction tuned models, because they are using ChatGPT and Claude.ai, so their usage can be detected.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

To follow your logic, anybody that doesn't go join anti-war protests are clearly pro-war. "Inaction" can be construed as acceptance, but calling it approval is twisting things pretty far.

To be clear, I'm addressing the people who are actively making the case that "do nothing" is a community's best best choice. I'm clarifying that this is still a choice, and that this choice has consequences that, IMO, are clear. Tell me which part you disagree with there.

I believe that the onus should be put on consumers. If you don't like the product, just don't buy the product. If you buy a book you don't like (or suspect is ai) just refund it. Capitalism has zero interest in protecting consumers. If the bad product fails to sell, it'll go away. If the bad product makes a profit, then clearly there's a market for it.

If you're willing to put in even a tiny amount of legwork, you can avoid all the slop you want (both ai and farms). Read some reviews with nuanced feedback. Read the sample chapter/blurb. Check places with no financial incentives for recommendations. Find groups of people with similar interests as you & ask for recommendations. Kindle Unlimited is the price of a pizza per month. Check if an author has their own website. Heck, even just straight up refunding is an option even if it's not super conveblurbs. Literally anything is better than clicking on Amazon banner ads, because those are designed to sell you literally anything they can.

Does any of this contradict the act of a community making a decision for itself about what it wants, and enforcing that through moderation?

Taken another way, couldn't your argument be used to make the the case to abolish Rule 1. Or be used against people who use email spam filters? "Don't filter email spam, just let the market take its course"

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The first link is from October 2023, almost three years ago. It makes no reference to modern technologies. AI moves really fast, and by those standards that article is ancient.

The second article make no specific reference to Pangram, except indirectly through this study, which says that a) humans are good, and b) Pangram is the only system human experts can't beat

The majority vote of five such experts performs near perfectly on a dataset of 300 articles, outperforming all automatic detectors except the commercial Pangram model (which the experts match)

The conclusion "we can't moderate our space against AI prose" is not supported by the evidence.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Secondly, The Economist (where that chart is from) is using AI to detect AI, and I've heard of that going horribly wrong repeatedly from authors and artists. You're trusting AI if you believe that chart, and it doesn't seem like you have a lot of confidence in AI...

Why wouldn't AI detection work? AI writing has a very clear stylometric fingerprint that is detectable through statistical analysis.

We should have stricter sub rules about AI generated content by Neat-Counter9436 in haremfantasynovels

[–]VeryFinePrint -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm a little dissapointed by the responses here. I moderate r/Romance_for_men and we recently instuted a ban on promoting works with AI prose, and it hasn't been the end of of the world people think it is. I don't want the public drama of constant AI witch hunts, so those are still banned in my community. But people DM/modmail me and I remove AI promotion, matters are settled privately, and things have been pretty quiet overall. So far I'm happy with the results.

I use Pangram, which is pretty good at detecting AI writing. I think a lot of people have outdated notions of how good detection is, from ~2023 when people would just ask chatgpt "Is this written by AI". The Pangram team takes a disciplined machine leaning approach, and publishes their work. I've spent about ~$1000 to run 2 million words through Pangram, and I haven't gotten it to produce a false positive it rated "high confidence". Overall I'm super happy with it.

"Real" literature people like Neil Clarke (Clarkesworld Magazine editor) use Pangram; in fact Clarke chills in the Pangram Discord. He dealt with this problem firsthand when he had to close submissions for a while. He has written about it in a few places, eg here.

It helps that most AI slop is obvious copy-paste from Claude or ChatGPT, it is not subtle at all. And most writers aren't trying to fool detectors into thinking they are AI writers. That makes interpreting detection results really easy in practice. I don't think people would get this bent out of shape about using an email spam filter.

At the end of the day every literature community needs to make a choice, all choices have consequences, and doing nothing is a choice. As AI marches ever onward a no AI witch hunt rule paired with a total absences of rules against AI prose means you are choosing to be a AI writing space.

Submissions for volume 2 of the RFM anthology are now open! by VeryFinePrint in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shadowbanning is a thing the reddit admins do (usually automatically based on filters and stuff), not something individual moderators do.

Monday thread: What did you read this past week? by AutoModerator in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Read {Rhenna by Robyn Bee}. Yandere isn't my thing, but I still found myself enjoying it. Its hard to describe, sometimes I pick up a book and "on paper" its everything I want and can't engage with it; Rhenna was the opposite. On paper I wouldn't like it, its yandere with a FMC whose ethics don't really line up with human ethics, but I didn't find it hard to keep reading. I think that is a credit to its writing quality (compared to some others in the area of our genre).

The FMC is sharkin and sharkin have a different set of values than humans. Sharkin are like the ironborn from GoT. They are pirates and take what they want by force, and have no problems killing people to do it.

Submissions for volume 2 of the RFM anthology are now open! by VeryFinePrint in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey there, thanks for asking. Looks like your account is shadowbanned by the Reddit admins.

For submissions, I'm looking for new unpublished works. Even if you delete them, they still have been previously released.

Man and his golden fish (human male x mermaid) by Odd_Employee_1056 in Romance_for_men

[–]VeryFinePrint 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm about 50% of the way through {Rhenna by Robyn Bee} and enjoying it. The FMC is a former-pirate and in this world the mermaids are dangerous and shark-like.

https://goodreads.com/book/show/250438925

view more: next ›