AI referencing Literotica

[AG31]

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.

Interesting. I specifically asked ChatGPT if it could characterize AG31's stories on Lit by only reading the stories, not relying on comments, etc. This is what it said. I can't play around with Grok because I was banned from Twitter way back when... after I'd posted maybe 2 things, and I wasn't able to undo the ban.

ChatGPT said:

I don’t have the ability to independently browse or pull up a specific author’s full catalog on Literotica, so I can’t analyze their work unless you:

• paste the text, or
• share specific excerpts, or
• summarize key parts (less ideal, but still workable)

 

[AG31]

I'd trust Wikipedia long before I'd trust an ai generated search on Google.

What amuses me is the disclaimer at the bottom of the AI response: "This information may not be accurate." Gosh, really?

Just noticed the nickname. What's the significance of "a dozen eggs?"

 

[AG31]

Then don’t misuse a triggering word like trigger in the first place. I wasn’t triggered by their BS claim, but I sure was by using that word. They might as well have started with, “My dear lady, let me explain…”

"Trigger" has multiple uses. Take the generous approach.

 

[AG31]

The sky is objectively black right now. It’s an irrefutable observation in the U.S. at one in the morning. There is such a thing as objective truth. The problem occurs when objective truth isn’t want people want to hear.

Closely related is "the illative sense." The term was invented by Michael Polanyi. It explains why we can confidently trust that the world is round. It's based on a huge collection of information from sources of various proven reliability.

 

[AG31]

The sky is objectively black right now.

Huh. When I read that I immediately thought, "No, it's really, really dark blue." I expect you're right and it's black... But I FEEL like it's dark blue.

 

[AG31]

I'm really glad to read all the defenses of Wikipedia. I don't use it much, but I'm glad it's around, like I'm glad the NYT and PBS are around. Someone's got to be paid to ferret out the real truth (as opposed to the fake truth...). This was not sarcastic.

 

[lc69hunter]

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.

You just nailed it

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm really glad to read all the defenses of Wikipedia. I don't use it much, but I'm glad it's around, like I'm glad the NYT and PBS are around. Someone's got to be paid to ferret out the real truth (as opposed to the fake truth...). This was not sarcastic.

And the entire human project has been founded on this socilalizing of acquired knowledge. None of us can be expert in everything, but we can accumulate expert knowledge and dissemanate it for the benefit of all.

This engine of shared social progress has powered our emergence as the dominant species on Earth. And now we appear poised to kill the goose that lays the gold eggs simply as some incontrovertible facts don’t fit nicely with the world view of a subset of people.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Just noticed the nickname. What's the significance of "a dozen eggs?"

I joined Lit in 2014. My stories are full of interconnections that I know about and close readers might spot.

 

[AG31]

I asked ChatGPT to review one of my stories using only the text in Literotica, no comments or other reviews. It did a bland job and didn't acknowledge anywhere that the content was almost all explicitly sexual. ChatGPT is a prude.

Here's the post about it that I made in the thread about AI slop.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-bias-here-s-his-plan-to-fix-that/ar-AA1NOBBu

Wikipedia has plenty of problems. Sure, you can link to peer reviewed sources, but when you restrict any sources that don't fit your narrative that isn't very meaningful. And let's not even get started with all the flaws that have come to light about the peer review process lately.

Then there's the whole "people disagreeing over objective facts" nonsense.
Show me an iron clad fact that there is serious disagreement over? Yeah... the flat earthers... that's about it.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-bias-here-s-his-plan-to-fix-that/ar-AA1NOBBu

Wikipedia has plenty of problems. Sure, you can link to peer reviewed sources, but when you restrict any sources that don't fit your narrative that isn't very meaningful. And let's not even get started with all the flaws that have come to light about the peer review process lately.

Then there's the whole "people disagreeing over objective facts" nonsense.
Show me an iron clad fact that there is serious disagreement over? Yeah... the flat earthers... that's about it.

I have issues with Wikipedia when I'm looking for unbiased resources on politics and current events. The moderators there seem to have pretty solidly chosen a side and don't appreciate anyone 'correcting' them.

 

[SomaSlave]

I have issues with Wikipedia when I'm looking for unbiased resources on politics and current events. The moderators there seem to have pretty solidly chosen a side and don't appreciate anyone 'correcting' them.

I don't view Wikipedia as a resource for politics and current events. For me, it's much more useful as an academic and general reference tool, which, I believe, was its original intent.

 

[nice90sguy]

Show me an iron clad fact that there is serious disagreement over

I can think of many, but almost all of them are politically contentious (e.g. election-stealing, Koran, binary sex), so I won't mention any of them.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I can think of many, but almost all of them are politically contentious (e.g. election-stealing, Koran, binary sex), so I won't mention any of them.

None of the things you alluded to are "iron clad facts".

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I have issues with Wikipedia when I'm looking for unbiased resources on politics and current events. The moderators there seem to have pretty solidly chosen a side and don't appreciate anyone 'correcting' them.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as an unbiased resource on politics and current events. Your best bet is to get information from across the spectrum.
Unfortunately, people crave echo chambers, which is why bluesky exists.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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.

Recently I happened to be looking up the definition of "prism" (geometrical sense). I found that several very respectable dictionaries have an incorrect definition, but Wiki had a valid one. It's very good on that kind of thing.