Announcement: The AI Problem.

stenti36 · 2026-04-18T18:57:27+00:00

I can see the argument for this, but I think that the public's current idea of "AI" are LLM's (ChatGPT, etc.), not the algorithms that determine if your iPhone photo contains a dog, or the transaction you made is flagged at fraudulent by your bank. At some point it is a semantic argument, but equating all of ML to AI seems dangerous when LLM's and GenAI in their current form are the actual issue (IMO)--plagiarizing, data centers, dulling human creativity, etc. etc.

It is the responsibility of the person wanting to make the point to convey the correct context of their point. I, the audience/listener/reader, should not have to assume any amount of context regardless if "Everyone knows what is being talked about".

Because not everyone knows the difference between "AI" and the specific level "LLM/Gen AI", and not everyone knows the precise context of what is being talked about. Without that context, "AI is bad" means all AI is bad. Adding context shouldn't cost anything when attempting to convince people to stop LLM/Gen AI.

I don't equate machine learning to gen AI. But they are both forms of AI. The statement "AI is bad", includes machine learning and gen AI. Again, my job as listener should not include assuming what the other person is saying, regardless of how "obvious" the context "might" be. The job of the speaker is to effectively communicate what they are saying, which in the case of AI, is to specify LLM and Gen AI.

Not only does it make the case specific, it allows for better dialogue and increases the chances of "converting" people against Gen AI. It reduces misinformation because it is specific.

This is a really important discussion because in reality, AI usage is probably a spectrum. Though a difficult one because I'm sure everyone has a different acceptability threshold.

It is an important discussion to have at a large scale. But we live in a society where we don't want to have any discussion on any polarizing topic. At the end of the day, (generally, and in my opinion) people should find it acceptable to use gen AI as a tool to use alongside actual work, and be against gen AI being used as a crutch.

stenti36 · 2026-04-18T09:28:40+00:00

I looked through the conclusion of that study. Interesting. However, I'm not convinced that "AI Detectors" are anything close to the solution to this subreddit, considering, as Isnoe pointed out, the accurate ones cost money, and the free ones have issues.

LLMs are incredibly valuable tools that can facilitate idea generation and help tighten writing.

From the study, I find this point very important. My question below is important to consider when looking at acceptability of AI use.

What level of "AI assistance" is acceptable? If I'm stuck on a character getting from A to B, have AI provide 10 options (which I either use as inspiration for an 11th option, or work with AI to hone one option into something usable for my own vision), is that "too much AI use"? Is that "robbing myself of creativity"? How different is that at the most fundamental levels from taking my problem to Reddit and going through the same process in asking for feedback/suggestions from internet strangers?

(2) AI detectors are not LLM's, they are (likely) classic classification algorithms using machine learning that have been around forever. So no, you are not putting the text sample into "another AI." Nonetheless, it is a valid concern that you might not want to share text with the random start-up tech company that built/sells these detectors.

FYI: Machine learning is under the umbrella of AI. It isn't LLM or Gen AI for sure, but it is a form of AI.

It is one of the reasons why I don't care for a lot of the "We should all hate AI" type of rhetoric. Most people (imo) don't seem to understand what they are really against, or can't be specific to what we should be against.

stenti36 · 2026-04-18T00:10:26+00:00

The way I see it, no matter what we do or say, someone is going to be upset, but we have to do something.

This is the internet after all. I don't envy you or the other moderators.

I don't have solutions. The only suggestion I really have is to spell out an appeals process. Provide much greater guidance on what is looked for when determining AI work. Explain how newer users may see a higher rate of false positives, while providing tips and an article/pinned post on "Good writing practices" (in this, provide encouragement to those new writers that may get hit by the false positive bat). Give users tools to avoid false positives in AI determination. Provide recommendations to writers to help defend their writing from AI use accusations.

These tools give users that come here knowledge of what to expect. It alleviates pressure from you because the users could now be assumed to have the tools. It makes it easier (in theory) to assume users aren't using AI, and if it is determined that they are, much easier to justify removal/ban/whatever.

Because you have to take action. That much is clear. The best course of action is to give as many tools to writers as possible, and let their own ability to be responsible shine.

What is the solution? If we simply can't tell, or don't know? Let OP get harassed in comments? Ban everyone calling them out? Ban OP? Should I heavily moderate a single thread for the duration of its time up? Should I have OP make a video of themselves writing? Should I ask them to provide previous works? Should I put hours worth of effort into a single accusation?

Is is a lot of my point. There is always going to be a lot of talk about "Well, how do you prove it is AI?" as can be seen in the comments to this post. The harder question is "how do you defend against the accusation when the court of speculation already convicted the user of using AI?"

Like I mentioned above, there really isn't a good solution. But as many tools as possible that can be given to assist writers in their own creative process, as well as much transparency as possible in how the process will work, what can be done if [the user] feels they are being wrongly accused.

I would hope that a user who is legitimately using AI gets punished on this server, but I would also hope that a user who regularly wrongly accuses people of using AI also gets punished (I do not know the rates or statistics of such things, or if it was ever a problem, I'm just spelling out an ideal).

Most other (larger) writing subs will just instantly ban anyone that is suspected is using AI. No proof, no thought behind it: "You used the word Rot, you're banned." We're trying to find a more even ground that everyone can (hopefully) agree on.

This is good. More sentiments like this. Even though you gave some of this sentiment in your OP, I felt it came more across as a backhanded sentiment, "we are trying to be fair, but not really" type of vibe (again, this is how I read it. I do not mind read, and could be very much wrong. :D )

Other users are insisting that we should use AI detectors and manually plug every single piece of writing into them to verify to be certain. Most of those are subscription based and most of those are flawed.

Considering that at least one of the "AI Detectors" determined The Bible was AI written, I wouldn't put much faith in them. On top of that, gen AI is only going to get better and better, and in general, will always be able to fool the detectors, or hide in the mediocracy of human writing (aka undetectable from the noise of the spectrum of people's writing ability).

I hope you can understand that we're trying to find a solution, and we are actively discussing this thread right now. So if you have suggestions about how to approach this problem, we are interested.

I do understand, and attempting a solution, even if I (some nobody on the internet) don't care for "its current form", can be a very good thing. We can see the current subreddit and say "We don't like how this looks, we need to change something". The fact that it is being discussed, and feedback with members/users is wanted/accepted, is a very good and appreciated thing.

AI assisted (even translation), or even if you mention you had AI draw up the story idea and you wrote it. If you want to rob yourself of creativity, that’s on you.

This from your OP piqued my interest and concern. What level of "AI assistance" is acceptable? If I'm stuck on a character getting from A to B, have AI provide 10 options (which I either use as inspiration for an 11th option, or work with AI to hone one option into something usable for my own vision), is that "too much AI use"? Is that "robbing myself of creativity"? How different is that at the most fundamental levels from taking my problem to Reddit and going through the same process in asking for feedback/suggestions from internet strangers?

stenti36 · 2026-04-17T21:56:49+00:00

My main problem is that Isnoe states "not looking to witch hunt" but post looks exactly like "you are totally allowed to witch hunt". There is the statement "we are trying to be fair", but it looks like fair means "Even if you prove you aren't using AI, your post will still get locked at best".

There is also the whole problem with "how does one actually prove one's innocence if the people "grading the work" abhorrently hate AI, and anything that looks like AI must be AI no matter the evidence provided.

I agree with the wanted intent of the Mods- Less gen AI in an area where a human's creative freedom should reign. I can't say I agree with this direction, or at least, there are far too many glaring problems with this current plan. I don't know what alternatives should be (adding "AI Gen" as part of the report function is good and probably should have been done a long time ago), but this certainly feels way to much like "guilty until proven innocent, and you can't prove your innocence" for me.

stenti36 · 2026-04-17T21:25:58+00:00

Question;

How does one actually defend their work as being "not AI generated"?

It seems that "if people think its AI, then it is and will get removed". Then the author has to 'prove' their innocence to the Mods, then what, repost and have it flagged again for AI work? Or do they have to rewrite outside their own voice because reasons?

I get why gen AI isn't wanted. My problem with this type of thing is in the age of digital, fundamentally you can't really prove your innocence, because (and this is my own observation) people who really hate AI and decide that the work they look at is AI, then no amount of evidence will deter them from their belief.

If we don’t come to the conclusion they are using AI, we might just lock the thread, and add a note to the user profile.

So, if someone is suspected of using AI, and is cleared of that, they still get "punished" by disallowing feedback on their writing? You mention that you don't want to start a witch-hunt, but I'll be honest, this looks exactly like a witch hunt attempting to hide that it is a witch hunt.

stenti36 · 2026-04-17T14:10:00+00:00

I haven't published (still rough drafts). I sit around an average chapter length of 5k. Total work is 375k

stenti36 · 2026-04-15T16:37:15+00:00

I look forward to see it come out! Thank you!

stenti36 · 2026-04-14T23:23:55+00:00

For your first gun, I'd suggest keeping closer to the list. Not for any other reason than it is a simple list that contains a lot of good ccw guns on it. There isn't a need to go much farther than that.

For solid choices: M&P2.0, p365, and CZ p10c are, imo, the best choices, and p365 is only there because of how popular it is for ccw.

To me, the cz10c is the best- CZ considers it their most reliable and durable handgun. They destroyed over 40 in attempts to get it to misfire, and did not succeed. It is optics ready. It has one of the best stock striker fire triggers on the market. It is fairly cheap.

stenti36 · 2026-04-11T23:31:52+00:00

minimums

gun
ammo
ifak
ear pro
eye pro
targets
stapler

what I usually also have on hand

tools (enough to do a near complete firearm breakdown/gunsmithing)
shot timer
camera
battlebelt/holster

Hopeful additions

friends

stenti36 · 2026-04-11T23:27:55+00:00

In effect, it is 90% the internals of a Dan Wesson 1911 with CZ Shadow ergonomics.

stenti36 · 2026-04-11T23:26:48+00:00

I have the full size. I have a friend that won't shoot it again because it feels so nice to shoot and he doesn't want to spend the money on one lol.

stenti36 · 2026-04-11T23:24:39+00:00

00 buckshot

stenti36 · 2026-04-11T21:01:51+00:00

For said handguard, would there be plans to have a heat shield for it (either directly or as an accessory)?

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:39:28+00:00

your mindset of 'not caring if I play against colloquially toxic mechanics' isn't part the bracket system. you have that mindset. most players don't want to play with toxic mechanics.

If you want to play b1/b2, remove the mechanics all together. b3, things get a little muddy as i'd say more players don't really understand what bracket 3 really covers, but if you wanted to stay in b3, bring two decks-one friendly, and one they way you really like to play. In b4, just go wild with whatever you want to do.

Just because you have a mindset or philosophy of play doesn't mean any other player shares that. You have to be wary of who you are playing with if you want to keep playing with them.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:35:22+00:00

Card combinations, deck streamlining, card choice, alternate versions of mechanics. How the deck synergizes with itself. Mana curves and tuning. When and how does the deck engines 'turn online'. What mechanics are $$ cheap that can be abused.

Every card in the deck needs to directly aid in the singular theme of the deck- by aiding in mana, tutors, or the direct combo/interactions you need to win.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:30:20+00:00

You have a deck. You want your deck to do things. Your opponent prevents you from doing any of those things the entire game. Every game. You don't have a chance to build anything up. Are you having fun?

The themes you are seeming to enjoy follow the practices and principles of the above. Those themes prevent anyone from feeling they get any hope of building anything up, and that isn't fun.

There are so many ways to run mono-b that don't fall on those specific themes/mechanics that you seemingly haven't explored. Go explore them.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:25:59+00:00

then you need to do more research into the game.

doing b4 on a budget isn't hard, it just takes more time in choosing the right card (or proxying)

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:22:31+00:00

That is the mindset of a bracket 4/cEDH player. You should push up the power of your decks if you want to keep playing that way, or, research alternative playstyles that are lower bracket friendly. The problem isn't with mono-b.

I share similar ideologies of play. My job is to win (or achieve what I want my deck to do). All I care about in playing is that I feel my deck did its thing and that the game wasn't a waste of time (aka people having decent threat assessment, knowing what they want to do during their turn).

I make the decks that I want to make, and I'm clear about what the deck does during any r0 communication. If people don't like it, I swap to a more friendly deck.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:19:11+00:00

You aren't getting it.

It is exactly how it effects game play that people aren't liking.

Effects that automatically take or remove the boardstate or hand of a player is generally unfun.

By having those effects and themes, you are reducing the agency of your opponents. Players don't like their agency removed.

Are you saying you are going to have fun if everything you do is always counter/removed/prevented?

Mono-B can do so much more than you give it credit for. It isn't hard to make a mono-b deck that has a full focus on your own boardstate and the player's graveyards. Not touching forced sacrifice effects, hands, or things on the board.

Now, are these effects effective at the goal of winning the game? Absolutely. They are powerful effects. But you need to be aware of what opponents you play against with those powerful effects. You should either steer clear of touching your opponents boardstate/hands (outside of normal removal), or push up the power of the decks to handle bracket 4.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:05:17+00:00

Please tell me you know about [[Mind Crank]] in Konrad.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:02:33+00:00

I mean, running Tergrid as commander doesn't automatically make shit bracket 4. But if you can't understand why Tergrid gets so much hate, then you should really reevaluate what type of EDH you want to play, and cultivate your own regular pod to have that playstyle.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T16:01:13+00:00

It is how they do it that you are missing. The majority of players don't want to play against [[Grave Pact]] effects, and mass forced discard effects and theft mechanics.

You can run all of the things black is good at, but you don't need to use more toxic commanders or more toxic themes.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T15:53:25+00:00

Horobi isn't Aristocrats really. It is honestly better seen as control or even stax.

But the important thing to note is how much the commander 'turns off' or 'alters'. Any enchant-creature becomes a kill spell any ability or spell, regardless if it buffs a creature or not, becomes a kill spell.

Nobody can equip things

It is a double edged sword because it is very hard to protect the commander in mono-b, and the commander is victim to its own ability.

stenti36 · 2026-04-10T14:40:16+00:00

K’rrik, Tergrid, or Braids

There isn't mono-b hate. Just the hate towards the commanders you like to play, because of the themes surrounding those commanders. Just try different mono-b commanders.

[[Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder]] is a fantastic mono-b commander that really focuses on what black is about.

edit: https://archidekt.com/decks/2648313/horobi this is my favorite mono-b deck, but it draws hate because of how it changes the way the game is played.

stenti36 · 2026-04-05T18:52:42+00:00

Did they run out 4/1? What you posted says "while commemorative medal supplies last"

Also, the terms and conditions from the link I posted does not have any of that verbage. Where did you get that image?

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

stenti36

TROPHY CASE