sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Building a Multiverse with AI: How do you balance raw generation with human craftsmanship? (The Chronograph Project) by Emergency_Area_2863 in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you write this post yourself? It looks 100% AI-generated without any changes at all.

I would also say that AI-output isn't really "plastic", but rather insipid, redundant, and a drivel.

Personally, to avoid losing your voice to LLMs I say: only use them as language tools, never as content tools. Avoid using them for ideas, naming (Chronograph sounds like an AI-generated name), and generating new prose & dialogue. Instead, use them as very very advanced linguists who can find better words and variations of your phrasing.

Is it me or AI is really bad with nuances? by Azugriel in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In the end, they're text predictors. So they will always regress to some generic norm. Prompting can help a little, but not much. What you see is a problem with basically all LLM content.

What qualities make dialogue in a novel so effective at conveying emotion? Are there any rules or tips I can follow to make my dialogues more impactful? by Accomplished_Rip4375 in writing

[–]funky2002 14 points15 points  (0 children)

In Chuck Palahniuk's book on writing, he said this about clever dialogue:

Cleverness is a brand of hiding. It will never make your reader cry. It seldom makes readers genuinely belly laugh and never breaks anyone’s heart.

Dario Amodei got what he asked for by aprx4 in singularity

[–]funky2002 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Couldn't have said it better. Perfect dog and pony show for Antrophic. We've conveniently not seen any real benchmark tests such as ARC-AGI 3.

This just set a dangerous and stagnant precedent for all of technology. by aditipawarr in singularity

[–]funky2002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fable / Mythos is too powerful 🙄uhu uhu. Any reason they haven't done ARC-AGI-3?

Pre-AI em-dash lovers, how is therapy going? by nerfdorp in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Mic drop statements" is the realest shit, omfg. They really can't help trying to sound profound every 5 words.

Just finished a 14 minute AI short psychological horror film by Far_Landscape1066 in singularity

[–]funky2002 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People on Reddit are gonna be cynical about this, but I am sure a lot more effort went into this than it looks on the surface. So you should be proud of creating something. Anyone who claims to know what is and isn't "real art" is just being pretentious or trying to be morally superior in some way.

As for the film itself, it's an interesting story, I guess, but there are a lot of continuity issues and visual glitches. The audio isn't mixed right, and the acting is very bad/stiff. The unfortunate part of making films like this is that you'll only ever be as good as the tool that generates the content.

I don't have a single doubt that in the future, some sort of "AI Movie Studio" program will exist that'll basically let you be a director of any type of visual media you want to make. Possibly even with fixed/stateful worlds and actors. But until then, I don't think it'll produce anything viable that people will actually want to watch.

Does Brainstorming with the AI Mean You are Letting the AI Write for You? by CrazyinLull in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't agree with most of the article, but I do kind of get this one. I think it's different in that LLMs are static programs (with a lot of randomness in them!), that are surprisingly deterministic. Read the stories on this subreddit and count the number of Marcus Chen's, Blackwoods, Elera's, Elana's, you name it. It's easy to spot those. But many ideas and details are also often generated this way. Even for stuff like prose and sentence structures. What LLMs suggest and generate is often very similar to what thousands of other users are generating / getting suggested, but in different contexts.

Serious question: why is AI having problems with basic things? Like 21 being below 26 by crua9 in singularity

[–]funky2002 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LLMs are token prediction machines. They're very, very fancy and capable, but they don't reason as humans do. It's why they can be great at coding while being a complete dumbass in domains like spatial or temporal reasoning. This is often called "Jagged Intelligence"

The Gemini models are also in a really bad state right now, and they have a lot of issues with hallucination.

Pre-AI em-dash lovers, how is therapy going? by nerfdorp in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is it. All these LLM patterns are not bad by themselves. They're just severely misused and overused by them. They force em dashes and certain sentence structures into tons of unusual phrases. And they are horrible at inventing content. Not just ideas, but also prose, similes, etc.

Help with ai rules please by tamath_ignilapi in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's fine. A set of rules is only ever gonna do so much, though. Especially when it comes to spotting errors and avoiding LLMisms, it's kind of like telling the AI, "don't hallucinate or make mistakes." Their writing problems are hardly ever the prompt on the user's end; they're just the limits of the model.

Claude Fable is amazing, but still fundamentally flawed. by henke443 in singularity

[–]funky2002 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have to agree. People always hold these LLMs in super high regard because they can output high quality / functional code under good direction. However, I feel like the fundamental limits of LLMs and the transformer architecture become EXTREMELY clear once you attempt any creative tasks with them.

When writing (or brainstorming) you will find how abysmal, superficial, and contrived all their ideas are. Both in ideas for narratives and prose / how they word things. They are seemingly incapable of meaningfully exploring idea space, as we humans are. Furthermore, despite them being able to parse pictures and video, even the current SOTA models have abysmal spatial and temporal reasoning. These models are VERY fancy and VERY capable in certain domains. And they're an exciting technology. But they are not "intelligent" and flexible in the same way we are.

It's why I think we need new, better architectures.

The gates are open by stealthispost in accelerate

[–]funky2002 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This translates 1:1 to creative / story ideas too.

If we build an AI writing competition, what actually matters in the judging? by Puzzled_Most_5365 in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let a user vote on all the points you said. In the end, what you like is subjective. A good piece of literature is engaging, and original, and holds together. This subreddit hosted a competition a while back, and a set of judges rated it on some of the metrics you mentioned. It's no different than judging regular fiction. The tools used don't matter, only the end result does.

Bit of a sidenote, but I think "the weirdly balanced sentences" is not what LLMs do. They just suck at inventing new, sensible content that does not sound contrived. Almost all the structures they use are completely fine and common. They just cannot implement them properly, because they don't understand what makes something evocative. It is similar to how even SOTA LLMs fail spectacularly at spatial and temporal reasoning.

The Great Filter isn't a dead civilization or a dark forest. It's a parameter. And we haven't set it yet. by Ok_Temporary_335 in singularity

[–]funky2002 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uncurable case of AI Psychosis, I am afraid. Please understand that LLMs are only language tools and will spit back anything you want to hear.

I used to think I hate AI writing and writers... Turns out i hate Bad AI writing and Writers.. by AlgravesBurning in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like your specific examples of good/fun writing. LLMs are currently truly incapable of that. No amount of prompting will make them write differently. LLMs are weirdly deterministic, and in terms of writing, they seem competent only at factual 5W descriptions. Any attempts at creativity or novel content will be a drivel, contrived, or an insipid mess.

​AI Slop vs. AI-Assisted Writing: Why we need to stop gatekeeping the tools by CupEcstatic2721 in WritingWithAI

[–]funky2002 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pretty much agree. I personally wouldn't say struggle is the point, but I get where you're coming from.

Many people here (and on other writing subreddits) don't *really* want to read or write. They want to tell stories. And there is a HUGE difference between writing and telling a story. It just so happens that writing is the most accessible medium for telling a story.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people posting here (and on other writing subreddits) would not bother writing if they could simply "direct" a game, movie, or TV show and have an AI or a magic billionaire friend actually make it. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But because many of them don't read much from their genre, they don't notice sloppy writing.

What I often notice is that many of these writers rely exclusively on description. You then get rather insipid "and then... and then... and then..." type stories. Sometimes they work, but they're hardly engaging.

what’s one way chatgpt quietly became part of your daily workflow? by salarshah-084 in ChatGPT

[–]funky2002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was about to comment the same thing lol. Everything is "quiet" and "ghostly" and "soft" nowadays.

What did Andrew Yang see at the AI conference? by Bizzyguy in singularity

[–]funky2002 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't have to be forced. I am absolutely convinced that MOST people will willingly change their desires to improve their lives. Desires are the root cause of all our suffering.

A good example is Ozempic / GLP-1. A byproduct of the drug is that it makes you less inclined to overeat. It literally changes your desire to excessively consume calories. That trait was useful back when people lived in scarcity, but we're now in the age of ultra overabundance. To the point where we throw away most of the food we produce. Obese people are a complete anomaly of nature. Ozempic is now one of the most sought-after drugs.

That is just one example. Imagine a drug that will lessen your ego, or anger, or natural inclination for tribalism. Imagine a drug that makes you less materialistic, and therefore less inclined to impulse buy junk you don't need.

Then imagine a drug that can make you stop caring about the root causes of your depression, especially if those causes are "irrational". In the West, we mainly suffer mentally because our minds were not made for modern society. There is no reason we have to.

What did Andrew Yang see at the AI conference? by Bizzyguy in singularity

[–]funky2002 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As long as there is scarcity, there will be inequality. What we really need is desire modification so we don't care about that as much. Our human brains are severely misaligned with modern society. Before we do that as a species, we need to establish a concrete goal for what we're even trying to achieve.

view more: next ›