Even after posting

[Nazgul1716]

So I guess I'm back to square one, guess it's upto fate to have your story published.

 

[SmilingLez]

Some stories are getting delayed. I submitted a story on 5/24. Still waiting on a posting date. I submitted another an hour ago. It has a posting date already. Weird.

That is the nature of the Pending Purgatory bug, it is random and can strike anyone at any time regardless of how many stories they have posted on Literotica

 

[SmilingLez]

By an AI, of course!

And automated AI filter to approve AI generated stories. Sounds about right.

 

[liliput1]

And automated AI filter to approve AI generated stories. Sounds about right.

It's too bad that shadowbans are so difficult to make convincing.

 

[SmilingLez]

It's too bad that shadowbans are so difficult to make convincing.

I've always been able to see through cowardly shadowbans

 

[liliput1]

I've always been able to see through cowardly shadowbans

And anyone who is being systematic definitely will. It pretty much only works on people who are being intermittently nasty (while also lazy), not actually consistently malicious, like a spammer.

 

[WittyUserName]

That is the nature of the Pending Purgatory bug, it is random and can strike anyone at any time regardless of how many stories they have posted on Literotica

It ended up getting a posting date, thankfully. So it went through.

 

[TheLobster]

And automated AI filter to approve AI generated stories. Sounds about right.

And then the only thing missing would be an AI audience to read them.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't see anything wrong with using AI as a fact-checking tool, so long as you're smart about it and don't let it feed you bad data. AI is a tool. It's not a malevolent force. There's a big difference between using it to pick the words of your story and using it to confirm facts. One affects the creative integrity of the story; the other doesn't.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't see anything wrong with using AI as a fact-checking tool, so long as you're smart about it and don't let it feed you bad data. AI is a tool. It's not a malevolent force. There's a big difference between using it to pick the words of your story and using it to confirm facts.

It's spectacularly bad with "facts". As soon as it comes up with one piece of false information, how can you trust any of the rest?

As search engines, the current versions are unreliable. Far better to put -ai in the search prompt, and wander through the results to establish a consensus of truth, yourself. All the Google AI does, for example, is summarise the top several search results anyway, and I've seen it get some elements wrong.

As for the much bigger models and applications, when you get the head of Anthropic saying, "Uh, guys, maybe we we need better guard-rails," someone needs to pay attention. Mind you, it is Saturday morning, so my newsfeed is full of "repeat a story from the week before" stories which still need some time to parse the truth.

One affects the creative integrity of the story; the other doesn't.

Agree this, with the caveat noted above.

 

[Stanfield2025]

It's spectacularly bad with "facts". As soon as it comes up with one piece of false information, how can you trust any of the rest?

Having double-checked what I look up with AI, I've found it to be right about the information every time.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's spectacularly bad with "facts". As soon as it comes up with one piece of false information, how can you trust any of the rest?

I don't find this to be true. I find it to be correct more often than not. You just have to exercise judgment, and have a good nose for bullshit.

It's not really an issue for my stories, because I don't populate my stories with a lot of "facts" that have to be verified. My stories typically take place in vague settings based on things I know but fictionalized.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Having double-checked what I look up with AI, I've found it to be right about the information every time.

I've got an interest in old tube amps, and often go looking for reliable information. It's an old technology, the information base is old, the data is limited. As a consequence, there's not as much data to parse. Based on my own knowledge, gleaned from books over the years, I've found some of the search summaries to be wrong. When you're dealing with over 500 volts, you've got to know it's right.

If you need to go away and double check it, and have a good bullshit filter, for me it's a bit of waste of time, having to do that.

Nowadays the Google search engine has a little caveat at the bottom, this information might not be reliable. So even the search engine knows it makes shit up, on occasion. And the fucking visual AI stuff, still gives you claws, ffs! Not quite good enough yet.

 

[Voboy]

I've got an interest in old tube amps, and often go looking for reliable information. It's an old technology, the information base is old, the data is limited. As a consequence, there's not as much data to parse. Based on my own knowledge, gleaned from books over the years, I've found some of the search summaries to be wrong. When you're dealing with over 500 volts, you've got to know it's right.

If you need to go away and double check it, and have a good bullshit filter, for me it's a bit of waste of time, having to do that.

Nowadays the Google search engine has a little caveat at the bottom, this information might not be reliable. So even the search engine knows it makes shit up, on occasion. And the fucking visual AI stuff, still gives you claws, ffs! Not quite good enough yet.

Yes. I've got a number of esoteric but potentially dangerous hobbies and interests that I know a great deal about, and not because I'm brilliant or anything: I just get curious and read a lot. Without fail, AI-related searches in those limited areas reveal BIG knowledge gaps and/or outright fabrications.

So I have to conclude that in areas I know little or nothing about, AI searches are getting things just as wrong.

 

[EmilyMiller]

So I have to conclude that in areas I know little or nothing about, AI searches are getting things just as wrong.

AI is impressive to the inexpert and laughable to the expert. Then we seem to have decided that experts are dispensable, contradicting millennia of human progress.

 

[Voboy]

AI is impressive to the inexpert and laughable to the expert. Then we seem to have decided that experts are dispensable, contradicting millennia of human progress.

This is true, but antipathy toward experts is also a leitmotif in a LOT of times and places. "The intelligentsia" often get demonized or killed off, unfortunately.

 

[StillStunned]

So I have to conclude that in areas I know little or nothing about, AI searches are getting things just as wrong.

The biggest success of AI marketing is that it's convinced people that, even though it can't be trusted in their own area of expertise, it's good enough in every other area of expertise.

 

[PennyThompson]

The biggest success of AI marketing is that it's convinced people that, even though it can't be trusted in their own area of expertise, it's good enough in every other area of expertise.

Oh wow, you just made me realize that this kind of AI hype marketing is a direct reflection of the techbro ethos!

Someone is proficient and successful (or maybe just connected and lucky) in one narrow field like programming or crypto or whatever. But then they convince themselves that because they understand and are good at working one kind of system, they are surely equally good at working any and all other systems.

That's why techbros end up building or buying out submarines and rocketships and quasi-governmental agencies and media companies. And then proceed to run them with disastrous and explosive (or implosive) results