People are using AI but not disclosing it. How do you detect it ?

Lightbringer · Monday at 5:39 PM

Monsterboy said:
What. No, seriously, what. I swear, AI is a self-destructive anti-human cult, complete with machine gods (just 1 more datacenter bro, just one more drained lake and another tripling of your power bill bro, then the singularity self-improving AI will arrive), a salvation/punishment narrative (almighty AI that will punish disbelievers and solve all problems... through a large language model at that, which as someone that actually knows how they work it's the dumbest claim of them of all for anyone to fall for), all while slowly destroying healthy markets (all of personal computing, video games, electricity, etc.) for a product without profit, without a path to profitability, without any positive impact on anything other than protein folding and real-time somewhat accurate translation. A trillion dollar solution in search of a problem.

Can't wait for them to start charging what it actually costs so AI slop becomes unaffordable.

Let me retranslate your actual outrage.
It isn't AI.

What. No, seriously, what. I swear, 'rich people' is a self-destructive anti-human cult, complete with machine gods (just 1 more datacenter bro, just one more drained lake and another tripling of your power bill bro, then the singularity self-improving AI will arrive)

I do find the water part fun because all sectors of the industry are water hungry, but people make a whole bear with AI because...well, not so much people as a 'loud minority' that dislikes the idea of any possibility that view of the world is made invalid.
AI 'art' doesn't make human 'art' valueless, if anything, it will trim out the bad human 'art'.
But this also doesn't erase the fact that you fundamentally misread value.

Value is inherently subjective, no amount of given work spend or not will make a work 'valuable', only the desire of the one willing to exchange their time for it does.

Also we can't criticize those guys for seeking a machine god when people pray for a day of 'reckoning' (revolution) to solve all of their troubles...unless if we DO AWAY with the silly idea, but nobody is willing to do that now, right?

, a salvation/punishment narrative (almighty AI that will punish disbelievers and solve all problems... through a large language model at that, which as someone that actually knows how they work it's the dumbest claim of them of all for anyone to fall for), all while slowly destroying healthy markets (all of personal computing, video games, electricity, etc.) for a product without profit, without a path to profitability, without any positive impact on anything other than protein folding and real-time somewhat accurate translation. A trillion dollar solution in search of a problem.

'Healthy markets', you mean the same markets that kept shotting slop after slop with programmed obsolence?
That 'healthy market'?

Again, if it isn't profitable, they will bankrupt, if they aren't getting bankrupt, the government is saving them off, if that is the case, then the problem is another one and not AI itself. One related to the government and the economy.

Can't wait for them to start charging what it actually costs so AI slop becomes unaffordable.

They already charge what would give them the marginal needed to for their purposes. People use it because it has value for them.
Your 'value' is not what other people think to be 'valuable'. And no amount of spiritual 'value' babble will change that.

BronzePlaceWriter · Tuesday at 12:53 AM

Monsterboy said:
In reality, if we wanted to keep out the AI slop, we'd make it a rule to, rather than making people immune to criticism or mockery for using AI, to specifically mock a denigrate anything that seems to have came from an LLM. Because mockery and ostracism is specifcally a way to enforce culturual compliance, like when Meta's glasses originally came out, everyone laughed at anyone who bought them, and it worked to prevent them from being prevalent for a decade. The collateral damage would be unfortunate, but it's better than the unending churn of slop bereft of any value masquerading as fiction that has overwhelmed RR and SB that have pro-AI policies (anything shielding users from criticism or saying 'is this AI slop? It sure reads like it' is pro-AI). Here it's just laxer, but the point remains valid.

Okay, but who decides what comes from an LLM?

Who has permission to decide who gets to be mocked? Who are you willing to give so much power that they can point to any one of us who dares to post their own content and go ''You! You are an officially sanctioned Bad Person and I give everyone the right, nay, the duty to bully you!''

Surely, this will lead to no tragic mistakes. No people being hurt. No witchhunts, traumatic experiences or innocent people being targeted.

xihute · 2026-07-23T11:58:09+0100

People are using AI but not disclosing it. How do you detect it ?

I detect it through reading, it is kinda obvious after a while, the telltales are there.

Honestly, I don't care that much, most of AI-using fiction goes into the category of slop: forgetful, unengaging, inoffensive. The overall verbose style of writing that AI pushes doesn't help, even if it sounds "literary". If I don't like something, I drop reading it. (I should be more eager to drop fics that got/are boring, though)

The thing is, there's plenty of human-made slop, without any telltales of AI-writing or made before the LLMs. I'm just reading one such human-made slop, a good one: it is forgetful, unengaging, inoffensive, but mildly pleasant to listen to in the background. The moment I will stop being mildly interested in the fic, I will drop it and never return.

At this point, I think that I'm able to notice telltale signs of AI by the first chapter in 90% of cases, by the second in 98% cause people put more effort in the first chapter.
If I disliked the AI-isms, I could drop such fics at the first sign, and it shouldn't even matter if the AI was used, if the writing is similar enough.

What I mean is: you can notice it, it often takes less time than discovering that the execution of a fic with an interesting premise isn't to your liking, so the problem is mostly imaginary.

I would even support people's ability to openly discuss whether something was made with AI, IF people would be capable of being reasonable about it. Unfortunately, not everyone is. The calls for public shaming and bullying do confirm that I was right in changing my opinion about it.

(It would be nice if it was normal for readers/authors to talk about how much AI was used in creating something, in what way, what the reasons are, what they can do to improve it or avoid the common failings, or if the story would benefit from less or more use of AI.
At this point it seems kinda utopian)

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T00:03:49+0100

xihute said:
I would even support people's ability to openly discuss whether something was made with AI, IF people would be capable of being reasonable about it. Unfortunately, not everyone is. The calls for public shaming and bullying do confirm that I was right in changing my opinion about it.

The way QQ has handled this problem of unlabeled AI usage has manufactured this issue. They have created bitter people who jump at shadows and for what? Is it that unreasonable to have AI works labeled?

xihute · 2026-07-24T08:19:15+0100

GatoArc said:
The way QQ has handled this problem of unlabeled AI usage has manufactured this issue. They have created bitter people who jump at shadows and for what? Is it that unreasonable to have AI works labeled?

It's unreasonable to demand "witch hunts" or to create some commission that will decide whether the fic used or didn't use AI.

Maybe people who jump at shadows are the problem, and we shouldn't excuse them or indulge them? Hmmm. Yes.

Some people just refuse to acknowledge that you cannot reliably detect AI-use without false positives or that not everyone cares about it that much.
QQ also is consistent about it: moderators refuse to make any kind of tagging mandatory, and the tags are the sole responsibility of the fic's author, neither moderators nor viewers are allowed to change tags in the stories (which AI is among them)

Edit: Exercise - can you find AI written post in this thread?

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T09:03:37+0100

xihute said:
It's unreasonable to demand "witch hunts" or to create some commission that will decide whether the fic used or didn't use AI.

Are you aware of what cause and effect is?

xihute said:
Maybe people who jump at shadows are the problem, and we shouldn't excuse them or indulge them? Hmmm. Yes.

Again, are you aware of cause and effect? People do not become like this in a vacuum.

xihute said:
Some people just refuse to acknowledge that you cannot reliably detect AI-use without false positives or that not everyone cares about it that much.

It doesn't matter if people cannot reliably detect AI-use. The point is we shouldn't have to, and because we do, we have to play a game of imposter each time we read a new story. This causes bitterness and paranoia with people that wish to avoid AI. A problem that can be easily solved by making AI assisted tags necessary, and making anti-ai sentiment in threads with such clear labels against the rules, because at that point, you know what you're getting yourself into.

xihute said:
QQ also is consistent about it: moderators refuse to make any kind of tagging mandatory, and the tags are the sole responsibility of the fic's author, neither moderators nor viewers are allowed to change tags in the stories (which AI is among them)

Considering how much this problem is affecting the site, as well as others, this needs to change at least with regards to AI usage.

I'll be clear, I want nothing to do with AI-assisted stories, I'm sure many who hold similar sentiments feel the same. There won't be any "witch hunts" from people like me due to sole fact that we hold complete and utter apathy to such works.

Have your AI generate whatever text you want and post it in the writing section, I do not care. I just want to avoid reading it, like many others.

NumberSix · 2026-07-24T09:50:05+0100

People need to stop prioritizing process over output.
If the work is good, even if it was written with A.I. I will read it.

xihute · 2026-07-24T10:01:45+0100

GatoArc said:
Are you aware of what cause and effect is?

I'm against indulging neuroticism of small portion of users, no matter what they claim is the reason of their neuroticism.

GatoArc said:
It doesn't matter if people cannot reliably detect AI-use. The point is we shouldn't have to, and because we do, we have to play a game of imposter each time we read a new story.

Unfortunately, we don't live in the perfect world. We also shouldn't be forced to die, alas both AI detection without fail-positives and immortality is impossible for now.

You have to acknowledge the reality.

GatoArc said:
There won't be any "witch hunts" from people like me due to sole fact that we hold complete and utter apathy to such works.

You want to introduce witch hunts because you refuse to acknowledge that we cannot perfectly detect AI use.

NumberSix said:
People need to stop prioritizing process over output.
If the work is good, even if it was written with A.I. I will read it.

Some people genuinely care about the process, I wouldn't hold it against them.

NumberSix · 2026-07-24T11:29:24+0100

xihute said:
Some people genuinely care about the process, I wouldn't hold it against them.

As an IT/tech head I can actually appreciate that sentiment but I can not condone it.
The pain is real, and I am sure people thsr went from ink and quills to typewriters and word processors after felt the same way.
I know the feeling you get from an aha moment, when you find some stupid flaw or optimize something to work with a quarter of the lines of code.
But that moment often mix massively with wortong boilerplate code.

Ultimately while writing fancy scripts using obsuxre shell and tool features is fun, the biggest benefit is when I can go to bed a few hours earlier and my fucking script drill works.

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T11:40:17+0100

xihute said:
I'm against indulging neuroticism of small portion of users, no matter what they claim is the reason of their neuroticism.

No one believes this. Why even say this?

xihute said:
Unfortunately, we don't live in the perfect world. We also shouldn't be forced to die, alas both AI detection without fail-positives and immortality is impossible for now.

You have to acknowledge the reality.

This is the reality that is being ignored: A small portion of writers are making this site unusable for users who care about authentic works, and in turn new writers, who these users do not even give a chance to due to the lax attitude towards masked AI usage. Nothing is in the works to fix this.

Solutions are not being discussed. The problem is being left to fester.

NumberSix said:
People need to stop prioritizing process over output.
If the work is good, even if it was written with A.I. I will read it.

I had a positive attitude towards AI when I started seeing it in this site. However, unlabeled AI usage by writers completely soured any positive opinion I had towards the technology, at least in terms of writing and script.

Other utilizations of AI are far more respectable (Not all) when it concerns gen AI, and thus they haven't soured my opinion of them.

xihute · 2026-07-24T11:45:38+0100

Yes, but that's bit different, you are talking more about utility.

In art, for example, there are people who care that the art is old. If they would discover it is "perfect modern forgery" they would feel tricked and wouldn't enjoy it as much anymore - despite nothing really changing.

People judge and enjoy art due to various, sometimes weird criteria, and often it's not even choice, it just what they enjoy.

So I get people that are into 100% pure, human-made fiction even if I don't care about it.

Its just there's no way to verify that, we would have to observe authors 24/7 or demand time-stamped logs of their writing at least.

A little bit excessive.

Edit:

GatoArc said:
Solutions are not being discussed.

Propose solution. An actionable solution to the problem you have. I'm listening.

NumberSix · 2026-07-24T11:52:14+0100

This is getting into Emacs vs. Vim territory....

Lightbringer · 2026-07-24T12:15:47+0100

NumberSix said:
People need to stop prioritizing process over output.
If the work is good, even if it was written with A.I. I will read it.

I pressupose that a writer wrote it until he/she says it was A.I written or not.
And even them for me it depends on how they used the AI. If they merely had the agent write it and didn't give a look, did an edit to straighten it to their vision?

Yeah no.

If they did? I probably wouldn't know if they used AI if that is the case...so eh. If it is good, go for it.
At least I can start seeing some fic premises actually ending and not dying in writer's block.

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T12:29:35+0100

xihute said:
Yes, but that's bit different, you are talking more about utility.

In art, for example, there are people who care that the art is old. If they would discover it is "perfect modern forgery" they would feel tricked and wouldn't enjoy it as much anymore - despite nothing really changing.

People judge and enjoy art due to various, sometimes weird criteria, and often it's not even choice, it just what they enjoy.

So I get people that are into 100% pure, human-made fiction even if I don't care about it.

Its just there's no way to verify that, we would have to observe authors 24/7 or demand time-stamped logs of their writing at least.

A little bit excessive.

Edit:

Propose solution. An actionable solution to the problem you have. I'm listening.

I have. My solution is taking a clear moderation stance against undisclosed AI usage. Doing so would lower unlabeled AI usage overnight.

To expand on that, I would introduce a checkbox when posting new stories similar to the checkbox for the necroposting warning. Explaining that undisclosed AI usage is against the rules.

I want to emphasize that I understand your gripes with this solution, but even if it's just this and the moderators take no proactive enforcement (unless presented with undeniable evidence) undisclosed AI usage would lower by a huge margin. You only need to see the effect of the necroposting warning has on you to see the correlation.

xihute · 2026-07-24T13:03:08+0100

GatoArc said:
To expand on that, I would introduce a checkbox when posting new stories similar to the checkbox for the necroposting warning. Explaining that undisclosed AI usage is against the rules.

I don't see a problem with this, although it would be toothless warning in absence of the way to verify the AI use.

With necro (and I think that's a stupid rule) it is immediately obvious when the rule was broken.

GatoArc said:
My solution is taking a clear moderation stance against undisclosed AI usage.

Also, I don't see a problem and it would be an empty gesture.

I don't think that it would help, but I also don't think that it would in any way bring harm.

Someone else than me needs to speak up about it, but I think that underlying philosophy of QQ is that it's site for authors to write what and how they want almost anything (similar to AO3). The moderators remain off-hand and only involve their powers when it's necessary and generally being pretty lax.

I personally enjoy that and think that it leads to better outcome than heavy-handed rule enforcement (and being strict about what's allowed to say).

The enforcement of what you propose would go against that, it better fits where there's a heavy involvement of moderation e.g. SB.

Reiterating, I don't think the warnings would help, but I don't see a harm in trying them.

NumberSix · 2026-07-24T13:33:04+0100

The mods here do not want to have excessive overhead.
It will be nice if people stop demanding they chase after ghosts.
Really the mods here are some of the better ones compared to the rest of the interwebz.
No fucking need to make them wrangle individual writers and do witch hunts because some people have an unhealthy A.I. obsession!

To the more obstinate antis, I am sorry, but even when the bubble crashes and even after we get into the switch of the bait and switch we will see A.I. generated or assisted content in our daily lives.
Rather than being the one person on the beach acting all indignant and raging against thr Tsunami you should maybe go find cover.
Figuratively speaking, of course.

Edit:

Our moderation team operates with limited time and resources. It would be incredibly helpful if the community focused on actionable reports rather than speculative ones. Compared to many spaces online, the mods here do an excellent job. There is simply no reason to demand individual witch hunts or micromanagement over AI concerns.To those deeply opposed to AI: even if current tech trends shift, AI-assisted content is here to stay in daily life. Instead of fighting an unstoppable wave, it is much more practical to adapt and find ways to navigate the changing landscape.

Is this recognizable as A.I. or do I just sound like I started reading The Economist and rewatching Yes, Minister again, while an autonomous stick somehow found its way up my arse?

Lightbringer · 2026-07-24T13:42:42+0100

GatoArc said:
There won't be any "witch hunts" from people like me due to sole fact that we hold complete and utter apathy to such works.

View: https://giphy.com/gifs/tophermcgee3-sure-yan-BJuY1nqUM23CiWUf8l

I would trust that if it wasn't thanks to such thinking that I got some really nice Fics erased in the deep past.
There was a fic I liked in FF.net that got erased because well...the purge was about adult content but lots of Non Adult Content were flagged and destroyed because 'I don't like it and I want it DEAD because others like it and don't leave it to die!'

Now. You can't prove someone used AI unless it is too right on, the Anti AI crowd will flag non AI written works and call it 'AI written' and force the tag there even if it is not true (because NOBODY is going to record themselves writing to please a bunch of moral busybodies whining about AI because it isn't being used to do 'working-class' labor, which, by the way, would be far too hard to create currently) and probably kill the fic due to the stigma the tag has.

GatoArc said:
I have. My solution is taking a clear moderation stance against undisclosed AI usage. Doing so would lower unlabeled AI usage overnight.

To expand on that, I would introduce a checkbox when posting new stories similar to the checkbox for the necroposting warning. Explaining that undisclosed AI usage is against the rules.

I want to emphasize that I understand your gripes with this solution, but even if it's just this and the moderators take no proactive enforcement (unless presented with undeniable evidence) undisclosed AI usage would lower by a huge margin. You only need to see the effect of the necroposting warning has on you to see the correlation.

...so I suppose 'feels' will decide whether a work is A.I generated or not?
Do you have a set of parameters?

KitsuneObsessedFreak · 2026-07-24T14:05:52+0100

FTR2017 said:
I've found that the laziest fucks using that disaster of programming origin do not even bother editing the shit it spews.

So, you'll soon find that inside the same chapter the damned thing repeats itself in different iterations. Then there's how it self-contradicts in background details, or even actions.

There is no thought put into it, there is no actual conscience in the slightest.

It is all 'dramatic' in a nothingburger sort of way.

I've found my fair share of AI trash that used interesting premises ... which were wasted on the waste of flesh that used said AI trash to generate it.

They don't deserve to even get the 'write' verb. They are lazy fucks who expect people to pay them money to recoup their subscription investment to peddle AI diarrhea slop.

The saddest part? There are morons who actually toss their hard-earned money their way instead of actually paying a commission writer who's proven that they aren't AI generator users.

At least the fucks who use AI to generate, then edit the diarrhea to make it at least make some fucking sense bother to edit the digital abortion. I still don't like them, but I respect them an iota more than the lazy ones who don't even care.

As a commissioned author, who finds writing to be my pride and joy, I agree with this. People who use AI to write are absolutely trash if they call themselves an author for it, and try to sell it.

It's like a 40 year old overweight Karen not bothering to do any training for the marathon she signed up for, and then taking an Uber to the finish line, before trying to claim that she was the one who should receive the trophy and the money for it, and that 'fit people' can't gatekeep sports like marathons, just because they can do it on foot.

Some people may claim disability, but bitch, I am literally developmentally disabled, with a grade 3 education if that, and I've found that people like my work, and are willing to pay me to write for them, so I'm going to call bs. Hell, I have carpel tunnel from how much i write for people, and basically put myself in the hospital every six months trying to make sure my friends and co-workers have enough to eat, and a roof over their heads.

So I absolutely *despise* trash who believes that just because they can prompt a machine to do their work for them, it makes them an author. Seriously, the keyboard is right fucking there, just sit down, and type out a few words. Get to it, and get better by actually learning and doing your research, until people like your work enough normally to support you for what you do, because they love your work. Like, my fucking god, this kind of thing is so annoying.

There are artists and authors who have no control over their limbs, and who cannot speak. What did they do? They used what they have, their eye motions, their tongue, their toes, their fingers, anything, and wrote anyways. Several such examples exist.

Hell, Vergil1989 exists, and he's a classic example of this on this fucking site! I may not get along with the guy, but he's very much disabled all to hell and back, and still writes!

Y'all understand my frustration with the very literal lazy AI techbros unironically trying to replace us with machines yeah? That shit is just so uncool..

Lightbringer · 2026-07-24T14:18:09+0100

KitsuneObsessedFreak said:
As a commissioned author, who finds writing to be my pride and joy, I agree with this. People who use AI to write are absolutely trash if they call themselves an author for it, and try to sell it.

It's like a 40 year old overweight Karen not bothering to do any training for the marathon she signed up for, and then taking an Uber to the finish line, before trying to claim that she was the one who should receive the trophy and the money for it, and that 'fit people' can't gatekeep sports like marathons, just because they can do it on foot.

Some people may claim disability, but bitch, I am literally developmentally disabled, with a grade 3 education if that, and I've found that people like my work, and are willing to pay me to write for them, so I'm going to call bs. Hell, I have carpel tunnel from how much i write for people, and basically put myself in the hospital every six months trying to make sure my friends and co-workers have enough to eat, and a roof over their heads.

So I absolutely *despise* trash who believes that just because they can prompt a machine to do their work for them, it makes them an author. Seriously, the keyboard is right fucking there, just sit down, and type out a few words. Get to it, and get better by actually learning and doing your research, until people like your work enough normally to support you for what you do, because they love your work. Like, my fucking god, this kind of thing is so annoying.

There are artists and authors who have no control over their limbs, and who cannot speak. What did they do? They used what they have, their eye motions, their tongue, their toes, their fingers, anything, and wrote anyways. Several such examples exist.

Hell, Vergil1989 exists, and he's a classic example of this on this fucking site! I may not get along with the guy, but he's very much disabled all to hell and back, and still writes!

Y'all understand my frustration with the very literal lazy AI techbros unironically trying to replace us with machines yeah? That shit is just so uncool..

I do agree, the issue? It is again hanging on 'work' being a value on itself.
It might be for you personally to value your own work, but work itself does not generate value.
It is the same way that the overweight Karen could work to get a nice body, but be completely pointless if she requires external value and nobody values that.

Which comes to my issue with this kind of take. It assumes the person writing is seeking their own self sense of value/reward when that might not be the case.

"Improving your writing naturally" is a cool sounding phrase when you give a shit to it because you feel satisfied personally doing it. Which won't make someone who uses AI something that pisses you off because they don't matter.

But we know it is also about external validation, right?

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T14:23:38+0100

Lightbringer said:
...so I suppose 'feels' will decide whether a work is A.I generated or not?
Do you have a set of parameters?

GatoArc said:
"... (unless presented with undeniable evidence) ..."

NumberSix said:
The mods here do not want to have excessive overhead.
It will be nice if people stop demanding they chase after ghosts.

It would also be nice if every solution wouldn't be shot down instantly the moment presented without even reading it.

GatoArc said:
"... even if it's just this and the moderators take no proactive enforcement ..."

xihute said:
I don't see a problem with this, although it would be toothless warning in absence of the way to verify the AI use.

With necro (and I think that's a stupid rule) it is immediately obvious when the rule was broken.

This is true, the intended goal would be the mentality that if you still post an AI work undisclosed at this point, you have to be conscious of what you're doing is not only wrong, but against rules of QQ. I imagine it would eventually be treated the same way plagiarism is treated. You can't just accuse a work of AI, you would need to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Either way, it would lower the abundance of undisclosed AI usage thanks to the obstacle which would be enough to bring back some quality to new stories. And that's good enough for me.

Narcissist · 2026-07-24T14:28:21+0100

GatoArc said:
(unless presented with undeniable evidence)

So you basically want a rule that's about as worthless as a Japanese prosecutors conviction rate. Got it.

NumberSix · 2026-07-24T14:28:46+0100

GatoArc said:
It would also be nice if every solution wouldn't be shot down instantly the moment presented without even reading it.

This is true, the intended goal would be the mentality that if you still post an AI work undisclosed at this point, you have to be conscious of what you're doing is not only wrong, but against rules of QQ. I imagine it would eventually be treated the same way plagiarism is treated. You can't just accuse a work of AI, you would need to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Either way, it would lower the abundance of undisclosed AI usage thanks to the obstacle which would be enough to bring back some quality to new stories. And that's good enough for me.

Asking people to admit they use A.I. will not help, they will lie to save face

GatoArc · 2026-07-24T14:39:56+0100

Narcissist said:
So you basically want a rule that's about as worthless as a Japanese prosecutors conviction rate. Got it.

Just because it would be a rule that would rarely be enforced, doesn't mean it holds no value. Merely by it being a rule it works as a deterrence.

NumberSix said:
Asking people to admit they use A.I. will not help, they will lie to save face

Plenty of writers label their work as AI. Will there be rule breakers who don't adhere to it? Sure, but at the very least there would be obstacle for them even if it's just their own conscious and ethics.

Monsterboy · 2026-07-24T14:46:24+0100

The very fact that most AI slop producers aren't willing to be upfront and constantly feel the need to conceal that they aren't actually a writer and have no real authorial skill just goes to show that they know that very few people would engage with it if they knew that chatgpt was the writer. If I didn't care enough I could do the exact same and just drop a prompt and read whatever slop is shat out, I don't need you to do it, and I don't want to waste my time muckraking through AI pollution that you assholes dump everywhere because you want the kudos that good writers get without learning or creating anything yourself. You just want the end result without any effort, thought, or developing a skill.

ForestDweller · 2026-07-24T14:48:03+0100

KitsuneObsessedFreak said:
Y'all understand my frustration with the very literal lazy AI techbros unironically trying to replace us with machines yeah? That shit is just so uncool..

All I see here is you puffing your own chest, demanding validation from other humans.

You're like this guy.

Having a meltdown because math theorems are getting conquered by AI one by one, and not by humans.

KitsuneObsessedFreak · 2026-07-24T14:56:10+0100

Monsterboy said:
The very fact that most AI slop producers aren't willing to be upfront and constantly feel the need to conceal that they aren't actually a writer and have no real authorial skill just goes to show that they know that very few people would engage with it if they knew that chatgpt was the writer. If I didn't care enough I could do the exact same and just drop a prompt and read whatever slop is shat out, I don't need you to do it, and I don't want to waste my time muckraking through AI pollution that you assholes dump everywhere because you want the kudos that good writers get without learning or creating anything yourself. You just want the end result without any effort, thought, or developing a skill.

Exactly. People that cant even bother to so much as try are cringe. As are those making personal attacks on authors who actually care about the work they do, for not agreeing with their opinions about AI, and in fact, disliking AI, when the thread is a literal Anti-AI thread.

People are using AI but not disclosing it. How do you detect it ?

Well worn.

Commissioned Writer/Legendary Moth

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Sexy boi🫵

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Sexy boi🫵

Experienced.

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Experienced.

Sexy boi🫵

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Experienced.

Well worn.

Sexy boi🫵

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Experienced.

Well worn.

(Verified Fox girl Enthusiast) (Floof for Brains)

Well worn.

Sexy boi🫵

Know what you're doing yet?

Experienced.

Sexy boi🫵

E-ranked Luck

Versed in the lewd.

(Verified Fox girl Enthusiast) (Floof for Brains)

Users who are viewing this thread