AI referencing Literotica

[Publius68]

Here is an utterly bemusing experience. I was using Grok to settle a bone of contention, a discussion unrelated to writing. (My typos and name confusion alone demonstrate I don't use AI to write…) And the conversation was not on a sexual, but a plausibly sexually adjacent topic. All of a sudden, among other sources, Grok out of the blue referenced a story here on Literotica! With proper author attribution and everything. As just another point of reference.
Wild, right?
I could not help myself, and started asking it about other stories on Literotica, until I manipulated it into bringing up on his own this guy, Publius 68, and his works. He told me all about him and several of his works (Grok clearly has a preference for the Alistaire and Sylvan Courtyard cycles. This is understandable, based on ratings and read counts for Alistaire, but Sylvan is nowhere near the top of my series among the readers.) Grok frequently mentioned specific reader comments as illustrations. He clearly has a grasp on my tone and methods, and even some of my recurring bits and inside jokes. Everything he told me about the stories was accurate, and Grok subtly, not explicity, but firmly avoided all major spoilers. That last bit was maybe the most shocking.
And all these results came instantly, without pauses for web searches at all.
Guys, I’m pretty sure that at least Grok, among the AIs out there, has read and continues to read and internalize all of Literotica in its core learning model. No wonder it is the horny AI.

 

[TheLobster]

In Soviet Literotica, it's the stories that write the AIs!

 

[THBGato]

I was using Grok to settle a bone of contention

Why? Just.... why?

 

[Publius68]

Why? Just.... why?

Like most things on the internet, it's a tool. Like a chainsaw or router, you need to be careful with it and spend time learning how not to maim yourself, but then it is kind of a thing that nothing else can do. Or at least it beats hours of Google Fu for the same result. And it is way more reliable than Wikipedia.

 

[sijopunk]

And it is way more reliable than Wikipedia.

Grok is trained on Twitter data.

 

[THBGato]

And it is way more reliable than Wikipedia.

And now you've answered my question.

 

[old_prof]

I have to wonder if Grok is using your browser history as part of the prompt to realize you have connections to Lit.

 

[TheLobster]

Grok is trained on Twitter data.

If that includes Community Notes, then indeed

it is way more reliable than Wikipedia.

 

[Publius68]

I have to wonder if Grok is using your browser history as part of the prompt to realize you have connections to Lit.

I wonder about that. Except I use a separate browser for Lit. It does know my name, though I have never told it that. Sometimes it shows a shocking lack of persistent memory, and other times it dredges up old references. I sure as hell had never mentioned Lit to it. It was just weird. What was weirder was the obvious difference between stuff it goes out and finds on the web, then analyzes, as opposed to stuff that it has been trained on or has trained itself on "organically”. This was an organic response.

 

[Publius68]

And now you've answered my question.

I am enough of an academic to have known for years that "[insert any source here] is more reliable than Wikipedia" is a greater truism than “the sky is blue”.

 

[AG31]

Interesting. I asked ChatGPT to characterize M H Keplar on Smashwords (that's me). I got strong confirmation that I write in a really small niche. It said a couple of times that it was drawing on comments, not the actual text, although all stories are free, so it could have read them. Later today I'll ask the same for AG31 on Literotica. Same stories.

 

[Aviastroitel]

I am enough of an academic to have known for years that "[insert any source here] is more reliable than Wikipedia" is a greater truism than “the sky is blue”.

To paraphrase Clemens: Wikipedia is indeed a collection of inaccuracies, damned inaccuracies, and outright falsifications. OTOH, air itself is colorless, the sky appears blue because as sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere, it strikes gas molecules and scatters in all directions; blue light travels in shorter, smaller waves, causing it to scatter more strongly than other colors and saturate our vision when we look up (Rayleigh scattering).

 

[EmilyMiller]

I am enough of an academic to have known for years that "[insert any source here] is more reliable than Wikipedia" is a greater truism than “the sky is blue”.

As an ex-academic, I’m calling BS on this.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I am enough of an academic to have known for years that "[insert any source here] is more reliable than Wikipedia" is a greater truism than “the sky is blue”.

Reliable is an outcome meeting expectations, does it do what I want to to. Just like Fox News or MSNBC, Wikipedia can be very reliable as long as you understand the inherent biases and set your expectations accordingly.

 

[StillStunned]

All this really tells us is that Grok has better taste than other AIs.

It probably lied about being 18 or older though.

 

[SomaSlave]

So, now people who are confused about sexual matters and ask Grok will receive the collective wisdom of Literotica as factual advice: that is a scary, scary thought.

 

[crookedletter]

I am enough of an academic to have known for years that "[insert any source here] is more reliable than Wikipedia" is a greater truism than “the sky is blue”.

Information found on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. But this claim is nothing short of bananas. Especially if your "any source" is so broad as to include AI chatbots.

 

[Publius68]

Information found on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. But this claim is nothing short of bananas. Especially if your "any source" is so broad as to include AI chatbots.

Of course. That said, Wikipedia has been providing me with pure delirium for longer than AI chatbots have existed. (Eliza excepted, but she never provided information.)

Sigh… Eliza...

 

[SomaSlave]

Of course. That said, Wikipedia has been providing me with pure delirium for longer than AI chatbots have existed. (Eliza excepted, but she never provided information.)

Sigh… Eliza...

Eliza…now that’s a name I haven't heard in a long time…a long time indeed.

You say you haven’t heard that name in a long time. Why haven’t you heard that name in a long time?

 

[EmilyMiller]

As an ex-accademic, I’m calling BS on this.

In areas I have a research perspective on, albeit a rather out of date one, Wikipedia is broadly correct, and supported by citations to peer-reviewed journals. In one case a citation is to a paper that I’m author #4,571 on.

It would be instructive to learn what areas people feel it is grossly inaccurate in. Though I can maybe guess.

 

[SomaSlave]

In areas I have a research perspective on, albeit a rather out of date one, Wikipedia is broadly correct, and supported by citations to peer-reviewed journals. In one case a citation is to a paper that I’m author #4,571 on.

It would be instructive to learn what areas people feel it is grossly inaccurate in. Though I can maybe guess.

I use Wikipedia extensively for technical, musical and historical (though not recent history) information. I’ve found those areas to be well documented. I’m a financial contributor to it (and to the Internet Archive) because it serves an important function to help restore the original dream of the Internet.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Well, this wasn't on my bingo card for AH this week. Still, anything coming from AI is something that I'd take with a whole kilogram of pink Himalayan salt. It doesn't surprise me though; there has been plenty of crawlers everywhere online picking off data for companies for far longer than before LLMs were a thing.

The only thing Grok is good for is for content creators to cosplay on MV, and yet Ani is a trash waifu pretending to be Misa.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I use Wikipedia extensively for technical, musical and historical (though not recent history) information. I’ve found those areas to be well documented. I’m a financial contributor to it (and to the Internet Archive) because it serves an important function to help restore the original dream of the Internet.

Great - my experience too. I’m interested to learn where the claimed problem lies.

 

[crookedletter]

In areas I have a research perspective on, albeit a rather out of date one, Wikipedia is broadly correct, and supported by citations to peer-reviewed journals. In one case a citation is to a paper that I’m author #4,571 on.

It would be instructive to learn what areas people feel it is grossly inaccurate in. Though I can maybe guess.

I'm not a researcher or an academic. I end up on Wikipedia a lot just following curiosity and tend to believe the things I see on there. When I say it should be taken with a grain of salt I only mean that, were I to use it for actual data collection or for something more formal/official, I would be careful to check the citations.

 

[Britva415]

it is way more reliable than Wikipedia

{citation needed}