Using AI as a reviewer to improve my writing

[onehitwanda]

Which would seem to indicate that they're actually a feature, not a bug...

They're a fucking odd feature then.

 

[StillStunned]

Good luck with your dreams of the technological Singularity. I'll keep drawing in the dust with a stick, it's much more satisfying and I can always use the stick to light a fire.

Don't set fire to any stick while there are still idiots nearby that need hitting first.

 

[onehitwanda]

Don't set fire to any stick while there are still idiots nearby that need hitting first.

I have plenty of stones and pooh to fling, in keeping with my simian programming.

 

[Bamagan]

Don't set fire to any stick while there are still idiots nearby that need hitting first.

Hitting them with a torch is a valid lifestyle choice.

 

[onehitwanda]

Hitting them with a torch is a valid lifestyle choice.

Don't kink shame... oh.

 

[StillStunned]

I have plenty of stones and pooh to fling, in keeping with my simian programming.

But it's not quite as satisfying as hitting.

Hitting them with a torch is a valid lifestyle choice.

This I can get on board with, as long as the stick doesn't burn up in the meantime. And unfortunately there are always more idiots than sticks.

 

[Plathfan]

Predictability...

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

Programs lack free will, and their predictability renders them uninteresting.

The human brain is a chaotic system, so not entirely predictable – individually.

As a generalised population we are usefully predictable and exploitable by the likes of Cambridge Analytica. And, unfortunately, they aren’t using AI to make our lives better by dynamically adjusting traffic lights.

A long term smoker has the free will to give up ‘cold turkey’. Many of them fail in their free will choice. An AI somewhere could tell you what the percentage are. Feed in more data about an individual – their current environment, brain chemistry, their peer group, their genetic propensity for habit forming behaviours, etc. – and it will be very accurate, but never perfect.

Humans are not computer programs. Even the most lowly of us "predictable" creatures can elect to behave entirely at odds with prior behaviours.

If an individual suddenly behaves erratically then you’d probably suspect something is wrong (hormonally, chemically, brain tumour, drugs, etc.). Or maybe it is just time for their mid-life crisis? Will they buy a motorcycle or a guitar? Their genetics and upbringing will have already decided that. The make and model will be harder to predict, but when Google sees them search, it may be able to influence their decision with a well placed ad.

 

[Bamagan]

But it's not quite as satisfying as hitting.

This I can get on board with, as long as the stick doesn't burn up in the meantime. And unfortunately there are always more idiots than sticks.

I disagree. There are about 400 times more trees than people, and each tree can become many sticks.

 

[AlexBailey]

I suspect this would be called a 'white lie' by a human. ChatGPT is telling you it honours the 'robots.txt' file on the site (that blocks it) but I'm sure the text has been harvested in the building of earlier revisions of the underlying model.

See https://www.literotica.com/robots.txt

I wonder what that’s supposed to mitigate. The forum is crawling with robots 24/7.

 

[Plathfan]

The human brain is a chaotic system, so not entirely predictable – individually.

There are those rare individuals, but the rest are quite predictable. For instance, I knew exactly how and who would react.

I am a mystic who believes in a creator. While I am intrigued by science, it holds no special significance for me. This is not the place for serious discussions; it is the place to hear the choir sing.

 

[StillStunned]

There are those rare individuals, but the rest are quite predictable. For instance, I knew exactly how and who would react.

You must be really special! I don't know anyone else who can say they could predict people reactions online. I bet you have loads of fans and tonnes of girlfriends!

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

I wonder what that’s supposed to mitigate. The forum is crawling with robots 24/7.

The first eight lines list the user-agents who should not crawl any of the site (anything below root "/"). So ChatGPT is denied access to everything.

The site allows (and wants) stories to be indexed by search engines like duckduckgo, so for everything else it only excludes the uninteresting internal site workings (API, Tags, CSS, etc.). Crawling the stories is allowed.

Robots.txt is an honesty system. Bots can ignore it if they are programmed that way.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You were made by just two strands of nucleotides composed of nitrogen-containing bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine.

This isn't even accurate as a statement about genetics, let alone in the broader sense that you're trying to apply it here.

 

[Plathfan]

This isn't even accurate as a statement about genetics, let alone in the broader sense that you're trying to apply it here.

Like a mallet to the knee...

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

...the rest are quite predictable. For instance, I knew exactly how and who would react.

Possibly, but I doubt you knew what words they would use. (But feel free to preemptively post my next reply, if you can predict it.)

I think a lot of the free-will/predictable-behaviour debate is a matter of perspective. We have a self described ‘mystic’ conversing with a bunch of ‘IT geeks’. The concept of ‘predictable’ is different between these groups.

A psychologist once explained to me that they screen IT people differently. If asked ‘have you ever thought about suicide?’ the ‘normal’ person would answer no, because they’ve never seriously considered it. The IT geek would answer yes, because they had to spell the word in a spelling bee once, therefore they had thought about it. IT folk are very boolean-logical, black and white (true/false) thinkers. They will choose pedantic correctness over colloquial conformance because programming computers has taught them to think that way.

I was agreeing with both sides in an earlier post because I think people are predictable (like the climate) but individuals aren’t entirely predictable (like the weather). The brain is a chaotic system, dependent on the quantum level interactions of sub-atomic particles. Hence the ‘chaos’.

There seem to be a bunch of paywalled papers out there about this:

Chaos and free will.

The Constraint of Chaos: Rethinking 'Freewill vs. Determinism'

What is chaos and how is it relevant for philosophy of mind?

And I’ll add this one for the ‘username checks out’ prize because I love the idea of a guy named “Neuringer” doing brain research:

Approximating Chaotic Behavior

(Could someone with an account ask ChatGPT to summarise these papers? )

 

[SmokingFap]

I’m not really all that interested in a computer program’s opinion of the emotional depth of my writing.

Thank you!

 

[XerXesXu]

(Could someone with an account ask ChatGPT to summarise these papers? )

I have the impression that a lot of researchers ask ChatGPT to write the abstract.

 

[Plathfan]

I was agreeing with both sides in an earlier post because I think people are predictable (like the climate) but individuals aren’t entirely predictable (like the weather). The brain is a chaotic system, dependent on the quantum level interactions of sub-atomic particles. Hence the ‘chaos’.

This is a space for cartoonishly flat people, driven by an equally flat audience, to jabber about emotional depth—not a forum for profound issues. But let me say this: "Chaos" is the go-to refuge for those too afraid to admit they simply don’t know.

The brain isn’t a chaotic system; it’s a highly complex yet imperfect organic machine with its quirks. A fleeting electrical glitch might activate a memory cell, and suddenly you’re craving a donut—that’s not free will. Imbalances in salt, glucose, or cholesterol can alter behavior, while shifts in serotonin and dopamine levels may cause extreme mood swings or even hallucinations. Yet, we always find ways to rationalize these effects with external explanations.

It’s inconceivable that some of the most pivotal decisions in our lives are made on a whim, yet we remain bound to them for the rest of our days.

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

A fleeting electrical glitch might activate a memory cell, and suddenly you’re craving a donut

Or in other words, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. I.e. A dynamic system that is highly sensitive to initial conditions.

Is the fleeting electrical glitch 'predictable'?

 

[Plathfan]

Or in other words, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. I.e. A dynamic system that is highly sensitive to initial conditions.

Is the fleeting electrical glitch 'predictable'?

If it follows a recurring pattern of occurrences, then yes.

 

[secretLace]

In the end it is a tool that some see use in. I use it to brainstorm and then evaluate its output. If you review it criticaly you can learn but a lot of it is generic and flawed in execution. Like some already pointed out, if you have a clear understanding of your capabilities then you might not need it but if you struggle then grammar och structure pointers could be useful. As useful as reading a book on grammar and structure and then apply it to your work.

Just realise that its not always right.

 

[Voboy]

Amid all the concerns about AI companies mining everyone's creations to fuel their programs, you want to voluntarily feed it yours?

This.

Fuck AI. I want nothing to do with it. My stories stand or fall based on my thoughts, my ideas, my self-critique. Otherwise, they are not wholly mine.

The handful of times I've ever taken any ideas or inspiration from anyone else, however niggling, I've made sure to acknowledge their help in a note at the top of my story. I think that's the only ethical way to take help in a published work: to tell the world about that help.

Do you publicly acknowledge the help this AI gives you, OP? Do the readers know they're reading something that's been approved by a computer?

 

[Voboy]

But that is because you are an exceptional writer. You don't need this. The way you create characters with depth is amazing. I fed some of your text into the AI to understand how you do it.

I've not read the whole thread, OP, but in case nobody else has pushed back on this?

Don't be feeding our work to your AI friend. Ever. It's not your work to experiment with in this way. You have a mind that is FAR superior to any AI; if you let yourself learn from other people's prose, you'll do much better using your own brain. And, on top of that, you won't be feeding other writers' work to a technology many of us find highly repugnant.

Do as you please with your own work; don't be messing around with anyone else's.

 

[Lifestyle66]

This.

Fuck AI. I want nothing to do with it. My stories stand or fall based on my thoughts, my ideas, my self-critique. Otherwise, they are not wholly mine.

The handful of times I've ever taken any ideas or inspiration from anyone else, however niggling, I've made sure to acknowledge their help in a note at the top of my story. I think that's the only ethical way to take help in a published work: to tell the world about that help.

Do you publicly acknowledge the help this AI gives you, OP? Do the readers know they're reading something that's been approved by a computer?

Have you tried it?


I just tried feeding ChatGPT with my latest work-in-progress, asking for a "review of a short story" (I'm a geek, and want to try staying abreast of the technology.) I was interested in seeing what type of feedback I would get.

I must admit, that although I don't want computer AIs doing everything, it did provide some VERY constructive feedback!

My wife listened to my story and merely said it's one of my better works, but provided no input as to content shortfalls or ways to improve it.. I have sent a copy to another author here as a beta-reader, and awaiting feedback (we're all busy, and it takes time.)

But in literally one second, ChatGPT sent back a one-page review, both praising the content as written AND pointing out several areas for improvement. One of its points in particular was a GLARING omission on my part, in that one of the key characters (the cheating husband) is "one dimensional" (that's Chat's exact critique) and needs further character building to explain his behavior.

Now, I won't ask the AI to do any editing or line-by-line critiques with recommendations, because that's going too far. But as a beta-reader, ... I have to admit that in this one test case, it both saves me time and provided constructive feedback RAPIDLY. So, I might look at it as a tool (when used sparingly) similar to "spell check", a tool to help me improve MY writing skills.