AI use Question

[onehitwanda]

Anyone can learn to write, and it costs functionally nothing.

Just time and a desire to actually learn, both of which seem to be in short supply in this 10-second-dopamine-fix world we've created.

 

[StillStunned]

Just time and a desire to actually learn, both of which seem to be in short supply in this 10-second-dopamine-fix world we've created.

And a willingness to receive criticism.

Preferably also a cat.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Now that I go back and read the message it states:

This means not only the text of our stories but also the art, audio, and photos must be taken by you or the illustrations made by you - or the work of a collaborator who has given permission for the image to be used in your work. Currently, the copyright of an A.I.-generated artwork is uncertain. For this reason, we do not accept work generated using A.I. Please verify that the all parts of this are created by a human.

So now I assume that is the AI Audio voice. It is the only way I can do an Audio story, which is what I enjoy doing. My goal is to eventually create stories that are like old time radio dramas. However the problem is that I am not a great speaker and frankly I would not want to hear me narrate a story. In the past I have used AI voices without a problem. This must be an updated policy.

I understand not allowing AI text, but in my opinion Audio of your own text should be ok. Copyright is a lame excuse. I don't mind declaring my Audios copyright free. I just want people to hear them, whether the like them or not.

So I guess I will have to stop posting on the site. I'll go back to posting on Youtube for those 20 views that my vids received.

I only posted one AI generated audio story here as a test of the technology, almost exactly two years ago, and I have even reported this to Laurel as one that she is free to take down if she wants to, but it remains for some reason.

I have converted other stories published here to AI-generated audio, but they are too long and the files too large to publish on Lit, so I posted them to Audiomack and make a little money off them there. (Here is a link to sample a reading from one of my published stories on Literotica that has been converted to audio and published on a different platform.) I also used AI to generate the voices and sounds for my published middle-grade book and sell it on Audiomack under a different user account.

I use Amazon Polly for the generic voices and Audacity for compilation. It takes patience and a lot of editing to get some of them to sound realistic, but it can be done. There is also the option of utilizing an application such as Revoicer to clone your own voice, which eliminates any potential copyright concerns.

 

[onehitwanda]

Preferably also a cat.

Shroëdinger's cat-box.

 

[yowser]

Quantum kitties.

 

[xman5]

I only posted one AI generated audio story here as a test of the technology, almost exactly two years ago, and I have even reported this to Laurel as one that she is free to take down if she wants to, but it remains for some reason.

I have converted other stories published here to AI-generated audio, but they are too long and the files too large to publish on Lit, so I posted them to Audiomack and make a little money off them there. (Here is a link to sample a reading from one of my published stories on Literotica that has been converted to audio and published on a different platform.) I also used AI to generate the voices and sounds for my published middle-grade book and sell it on Audiomack under a different user account.

I use Amazon Polly for the generic voices and Audacity for compilation. It takes patience and a lot of editing to get some of them to sound realistic, but it can be done. There is also the option of utilizing an application such as Revoicer to clone your own voice, which eliminates any potential copyright concerns.

I have been testing the story with my own voice. I have a medium NY accent and I tried to narrate accent free. I also used Audacity ( a great free program) to compile it. Oddly enough I ended up sounding like Christopher Walken as I added his strange inflection to my speech pattern. I am some what of an amateur at home musician, so I am not unfamiliar with using Pro tools. So I am taking my narration and trying to run it thru pitch correction and a vocoder to change the shape of the sound wave. Also a compressor , echo etc. This is not AI and is what Music producers have been using for 30 years. A lot of manual work. Hopefully I can find a satisfying template. Right now it sounds like across between Christopher Walken and Joan Jet.

 

[StillStunned]

Right now it sounds like across between Christopher Walken and Joan Jet.

If Christopher Walken and Joan Jett had a child, it would be the coolest human being ever.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

If Christopher Walken and Joan Jett had a child, it would be the coolest human being ever.

"ChatGPT, generate for me a real human being that is a genetic combination of Christopher Walken and Joan Jett."

 

[StillStunned]

I'd watch that as a remake of Weird Science.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I have been testing the story with my own voice. I have a medium NY accent and I tried to narrate accent free. I also used Audacity ( a great free program) to compile it. Oddly enough I ended up sounding like Christopher Walken as I added his strange inflection to my speech pattern. I am some what of an amateur at home musician, so I am not unfamiliar with using Pro tools. So I am taking my narration and trying to run it thru pitch correction and a vocoder to change the shape of the sound wave. Also a compressor , echo etc. This is not AI and is what Music producers have been using for 30 years. A lot of manual work. Hopefully I can find a satisfying template. Right now it sounds like across between Christopher Walken and Joan Jet.

Have you tried Amazon Polly?

 

[xman5]

Have you tried Amazon Polly?

I know it's good but, I don't want to pay for anything. But you still can not use AI on hear . Speechify is also good. They have Gwyneth Paltrow as a voice, but it costs money. There are some ok ones that are free . They usually lack options. That is what I have used in the past. I also used MS Speech from Azure with a free trial account. That was very , good as you can use a voice with different emotions.

There is also Eleven Labs, Revoicer. It is happening and can not be avoided.

 

[D_K_Moon]

I've read a few times that stories used to get rejected for being poorly written, and even now bad punctuation can be a reason for rejection. Do people say, "You shouldn't have to change your style" to those writers too? Did they back in the day?

My point here is that those writers presumably improved their skills, or else gave up. I don't see rejection for suspected AI as being fundamentally different. Whether or not the writer used AI tools, Laurel feels that the story is lacking in some way - as in, it lacks the quality that makes it feel like a proper story - and she can refuse to publish it on her site.

My first attempt at writing here was rejected for poor punctuation. I swallowed my pride and bought a book on style and learned how to do it properly. The story was accepted after the corrections and thus began my career as a writer of smut.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've read a few times that stories used to get rejected for being poorly written, and even now bad punctuation can be a reason for rejection. Do people say, "You shouldn't have to change your style" to those writers too? Did they back in the day?

"Back in the day", that is, before 2022, the AH used to give exactly the same advice it gave writers getting knocked back for suspected AI over the last year or so - don't write bland, dull characters, mix your sentences up, widen your vocabulary, avoid repetition, don't write in cliches etc. etc. In other words, change your style to make your writing more interesting.

It's only been in the last year or two that the chorus started up, "Oh no, you can't ask the guy to change his style, it's the AI detector that's got to change."

In other words, what had been "good writers' advice" for a couple of decades suddenly got turned on its head.

 

[Erozetta]

And a willingness to receive criticism.

Preferably also a cat.

I'm doing great on this checklist so far.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm doing great on this checklist so far.

I'm dropping "desire to learn", because I have an extra cat to compensate.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

"Back in the day", that is, before 2022, the AH used to give exactly the same advice it gave writers getting knocked back for suspected AI over the last year or so - don't write bland, dull characters, mix your sentences up, widen your vocabulary, avoid repetition, don't write in cliches etc. etc. In other words, change your style to make your writing more interesting.

It's only been in the last year or two that the chorus started up, "Oh no, you can't ask the guy to change his style, it's the AI detector that's got to change."

In other words, what had been "good writers' advice" for a couple of decades suddenly got turned on its head.

But why should we have to change our styles to meet the AI scan? We're all consummate professionals, highly trained writers with nothing left to learn, after all. I know I'm running out of space on my shelf for all my Pulitzers...

 

[Bamagan]

But why should we have to change our styles to meet the AI scan? We're all consummate professionals, highly trained writers with nothing left to learn, after all. I know I'm running out of space on my shelf for all my Pulitzers...

Sarcasm notwithstanding, it's one thing to change your style to meet specific guidelines. It's a very different beast to change your style based on some very fuzzy, possibly completely unfounded guesses about what's setting off a hypothetical detection system.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Sarcasm notwithstanding, it's one thing to change your style to meet specific guidelines. It's a very different beast to change your style based on some very fuzzy, possibly completely unfounded guesses about what's setting off a hypothetical detection system.

It's actually pretty simple, the gatekeeper for publishing on this site has some albeit vague and seemingly ambiguous standards that are based on the style of a writer's works. If we want to publish here, and since we have no control over those 'standards' we have two choices; adapt our style in an attempt to meet the standards based on pretty universally accepted methodologies, some of them mentioned by @ElectricBlue , or publish somewhere else. We control what we control and that's our writing.

In prior discussions, and in cases where I've made the mistake of trying to help, I've been met with the idea that any writer's style is sacrosanct regardless of how simplistic and rudimentary it might be. I started writing here to hone my craft and found a community of writers that I've come to enjoy and respect. One of the reasons is the feedback I've received. Go back and read some of my early stuff. Then read my latest. My style has definitely evolved and changed. Hell, possibly my favorite story of the ones I've published here is an attempt to follow the style of another writer. Sacrosanct is a trap, it's an excuse for the lazy to not grow and evolve.

EDIT: Opinions stated here are solely those of the author and are worth exactly what you just paid for them.

 

[OffNSFW]

If Christopher Walken and Joan Jett had a child, it would be the coolest human being ever.

"ChatGPT, generate for me a real human being that is a genetic combination of Christopher Walken and Joan Jett."

I don't. Give a damn. Bout my bad repuTATION

 

[Lathanar1]

I began writing on here with expectation—and hope—that I would change, becoming better as I practiced. Why wouldn't anyone want to learn how to improve?

I will say AI is handy for spotting where commas or run-ons are, but that's about the only use I've found for it. I tried feeding it my chapters to ask it to look for continuity errors within the story. That was an exercise in futility.

 

[xman5]

Sarcasm notwithstanding, it's one thing to change your style to meet specific guidelines. It's a very different beast to change your style based on some very fuzzy, possibly completely unfounded guesses about what's setting off a hypothetical detection system.

You are correct. I can give you a specific example. If have a you tube account that has nothing to do with my account here. It is about fashion and celebrities. No nudity or sexual themes. I am part of the YPP program. I had a short video with blue bikinis. Algo said it was suitable for ads. I had a second short video that was exactly the same video except that thru the magic of AI I changed the swimsuit to the color yellow. The Algo said this video was not suitable for ads. Occasionally I get the not suitable mark on a video. Every time I appeal to a human they always pass. That's fuzzy. Edit - but not suitable means it found it to be "sexual". Images that were tamer then you would find in Vouge.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You are correct. I can give you a specific example. If have a you tube account that has nothing to do with my account here. It is about fashion and celebrities. No nudity or sexual themes. I am part of the YPP program. I had a short video with blue bikinis. Algo said it was suitable for ads. I had a second short video that was exactly the same video except that thru the magic of AI I changed the swimsuit to the color yellow. The Algo said this video was not suitable for ads. Occasionally I get the not suitable mark on a video. Every time I appeal to a human they always pass. That's fuzzy. Edit - but not suitable means it found it to be "sexual". Images that were tamer then you would find in Vouge.

This post is not making the point you think you are making.

 

[RejectReality]

"Back in the day", that is, before 2022, the AH used to give exactly the same advice it gave writers getting knocked back for suspected AI over the last year or so - don't write bland, dull characters, mix your sentences up, widen your vocabulary, avoid repetition, don't write in cliches etc. etc. In other words, change your style to make your writing more interesting.

It's only been in the last year or two that the chorus started up, "Oh no, you can't ask the guy to change his style, it's the AI detector that's got to change."

In other words, what had been "good writers' advice" for a couple of decades suddenly got turned on its head.

You assume that's what the thing's doing, having no idea what model they're using?

Have to pardon me if I have little faith in something that's designed to generate revenue by finding AI. Guess what it's going to do when the bottom line is dependent upon it? Find AI!

Not to mention one of the common ( and apparently successful ) themes of the advice is to purposely fuck up a little of your grammar and spelling to beat it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Have to pardon me if I have little faith in something that's designed to generate revenue by finding AI.

You know that's how it works?

 

[RejectReality]

You know that's how it works?

Show me one of these things not designed to generate revenue. While you're at it, show me one that doesn't tell you stuff from 20 years ago is 26% AI.