• An addendum to Rule 3 regarding fan-translated works of things such as Web Novels has been made. Please see here for details.
  • RIP @Silver Swallow
  • We've issued a clarification on our policy on AI-generated work.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Clarification regarding AI policy

RaGNORAK said:
The problem is not the use of Ai itself. But the non disclosure of it and vehement denial and defensive posturing when asked about it politely. Yeah, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle and AI use is definitely going to be the future.

But, it ain't quite there yet. It screws up the plot when asked to generate it completely and when just proofreading, it writes in language that _feels_ unnatural enough (using double adjectives, writing in rhyme schemes and seldom used punctuations) that it brings you out of the reading experience.

It's still at the Uncanny Valley stage for writing at least, while images are much further along. So, it's not too much to ask to disclose its usage and if it is going to be continued to be used in the future. Shame that disclosure is only considered polite and not a required rule.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At this point, it's mostly a misconception: the latest generations of AI models are more than capable of writing indistinguishably. They typically don't do it by default, though. It's up to the user to discover specific prompts and contexts that work. Today, the works that are obviously AI-gen are those sourced by lazy authors.

However, I do agree that non-disclosure should be frowned upon.
 
RaGNORAK said:
The problem is not the use of Ai itself. But the non disclosure of it and vehement denial and defensive posturing when asked about it politely. Yeah, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle and AI use is definitely going to be the future.

But, it ain't quite there yet. It screws up the plot when asked to generate it completely and when just proofreading, it writes in language that _feels_ unnatural enough (using double adjectives, writing in rhyme schemes and seldom used punctuations) that it brings you out of the reading experience.

It's still at the Uncanny Valley stage for writing at least, while images are much further along. So, it's not too much to ask to disclose its usage and if it is going to be continued to be used in the future. Shame that disclosure is only considered polite and not a required rule.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This reply sums it up nicely.
Make it a rule to disclose if you used AI assistance to write your shit and most of the complaints people have outside of AI art spam disappear, which is exactly why I expect the opposite to happen and the problem to become much worse as malicious actors realize they can now flood the market with their product with impunity. Soon the only way to spot the work of the digital golem will be the emdash and reddit style prose.

You think the past age of godawful formulaic HP/Naruto/DxD/whatever fanfic was a scourge? You will think fondly of the days of those teen-written horrors, the crossover haremslop, the mary sue cardboard girl inserts, the fixfics and the rest...
 
A somehow enforced AI tag for writing would be nice, but I have no idea if it would be possible. There's nothing more irritating than getting a few paragraphs into something and going, "Hey. Wait a minute." As soon as you realize it's AI generated words, you can't help but start spotting for the usual AI generated problems.

It'd be nice to get able to avoid that from the get-go.
 
LynX said:
Ain't asking for a rule, just saying if your fic smells like a silicon smoothie, don't get offended when someone goes "yo did chatgpt write this" when there is no tag.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Frankly this feels outside the bounds of constructive criticism or honest review, just either picking a fight or trying to insult someone. If you don't like a story, that's fine, just go on with life if you aren't willing to give honest feedback on how they can improve. The writer will either get better, stop posting garbage, or you can just set them to ignore if you are somehow offended by them. We can all live and let live within reason for writing here.
 
Hmm... are the AI any good? If so which ones are being used?
 
It's not a big deal if they are going to use AI to help them write, but they should give us at the very least a small courtesy of putting a tag there if they used an AI. AI is an amazing tool to help people to locate mistakes, not gonna criticize them for that. But there are some people who truly abused it and created their entire stories by using AI, and they will get mad or get offended when you asked if they've used AI. As if it was our fault that reading their ffs felt like reading a textbook, and when you ask for clarification whether they've used AI to generate the entire chapter, they will somehow take it as attacking them personally when you just want to know so you can get out quietly if they actually did.

In short, there's a tag, use it to warn people.
 
BlueBerryExtreme11Zero said:
It's not a big deal if they are going to use AI to help them write, but they should give us at the very least a small courtesy of putting a tag there if they used an AI. AI is an amazing tool to help people to locate mistakes, not gonna criticize them for that. But there are some people who truly abused it and created their entire stories by using AI, and they will get mad or get offended when you asked if they've used AI. As if it was our fault that reading their ffs felt like reading a textbook, and when you ask for clarification whether they've used AI to generate the entire chapter, they will somehow take it as attacking them personally when you just want to know so you can get out quietly if they actually did.

In short, there's a tag, use it to warn people.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
AI will be the new slash. Can't remove it from your search however many tags you ban.
 
AztecCroc said:
Tags are user-generated and user-assigned, unless the people who are using AI to write put the tag on their threads it is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mods can put a tag on a thread, and if they do the thread creator can't remove it.


I will note that there are people who are trying to avoid AI output for various reasons, some of them philosophical and some pragmatic*, and not making the disclosure mandatory makes QQ unsafe for these people.

*For instance, "AI always tries to hack its reward. A decent amount of them (including the infamous GPT-4o) are trained with their reward being human feedback. I don't want to be hacked."
 
Last edited:
AI text generation is in a weird place right now. On the one hand, it's miraculous that it can make something even approaching a resemblance to human writing at all. On the other hand, it's still completely godawful at it!

Anyone who thinks of themselves as a bad author, I promise that you can write five times better than ChatGPT, easily. EASILY! It'll take you more time, sure... but it would take you more time to coax the robot to make something of similar quality, so it actually takes LESS time to just write it yourself.

It's funny, I'm always hearing English professors and copywriters and other humanities people doomsaying about AI already being better than them, and they're right in ONE way: if you want fast, cheap mush, I guess it's alright. But if you want anything with ANY level of quality, you've still gotta go to a human.

I can usually tell something is AI generated within the first 10 words or so. Idk how to describe it, but it just doesn't feel right, y'know? Like, it's got the same tone you'd write with as when you're trying to pad your 1000 word essay out to 5000 words. It's definitely possible to fool people with it, but to do that you either have to edit the output manually, or spend a LONG time prompting it and re-prompting and RE-prompting; both of which require a decent understanding of good writing, to know how to make it to fool people; in which case, why not just write it yourself in the first place?

The answer is most people who post AI text don't put in more than the bare minimum effort, because they think writing is a waste of time to begin with. These people are, obviously, not worth anyone's consideration.

Anyways, this seems like a good clarification, I approve.
 
I do find myself having to run every new story I read through an AI checker before I start to avoid wasting my time. This is pretty annoying when I am scanning through for new stuff to read. This is my only real problem with AI writing on the site, and would be partially resolved by mandating a tag for AI generated writing, but I don't know how much work and false positives this would create for the mod staff to deal with.
 
tronax said:
At this point, it's mostly a misconception: the latest generations of AI models are more than capable of writing indistinguishably. They typically don't do it by default, though. It's up to the user to discover specific prompts and contexts that work. Today, the works that are obviously AI-gen are those sourced by lazy authors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This has been said by supporters of literally every generation of AI models. It has never actually been true, outside of very niche circumstances that are effectively the equivalent of laboratory conditions, the user using such extensive prompts that it would be more efficient to just write it themselves or directly looting from existing fiction.

That last part is actually a severe problem. There was a relatively major court case back in June which ruled that the final work itself was transformative but the AI company had extensively violated copyright with their pirated library of seven million books. That wasn't a small AI company, it was backed by Google's parent company and Amazon.

It suggests quite strongly that if you use a LLM to write anything for you, while it could easily end up transformative by a court's standards it could still be direct plagiarism by most site's standards.
 
Last edited:
I considered myself a half-breed I use AI to help on world building and sequencing the timeline but did the writing myself.
 
4nec8maabg4.jpg
*goons*
🥵🥵🥵
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 48 more.
    • Total: 104 (members: 99, guests: 5)
    Back
    Top