Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't really care if someone spends the time to train a dumb AI to take plot prompts and fill out a story with it in a way they like. Entertaining stories are entertaining regardless of where they come from.
Bad AI save us from Bad AI LOLYou definitely need a bot that would detect ai writing and add that tag automatically
A bot capable of doing the first half reliably wouldn't be on QQ, it would be licensed out to universities for tens of millions of dollars.You definitely need a bot that would detect ai writing and add that tag automatically
We can agree that "I don't want to be hacked" is kind of a ridiculous instance here no? By that logic, there are hundreds of things we should tag so it's "safe" for people with very particular triggers.Mods can put a tag on a thread, and if they do the thread creator can't remove it.
I will note that there are people who are trying to avoid AI output for various reasons, some of them philosophical and some pragmatic*, and not making the disclosure mandatory makes QQ unsafe for these people.
*For instance, "AI always tries to hack its reward. A decent amount of them (including the infamous GPT-4o) are trained with their reward being human feedback. I don't want to be hacked."
Yep, pretty much all of this. People just think that AI writing is putting in a basic prompt and sharing what GPT spat out when it usually can be as much or as little as you want it to be. It still takes a lot of iteration, editing, and work to polish the end result. It's just using another tool in the process.Have you tried 1. using an advanced model that can both adhere to instructions and be intelligent about it? 2. defining a specific writing style by providing a large example? 3. holding it's hand and asking for very specific descriptions of events? 4. always concentrating on narrow scope? 5. going for a multi-pass workflow?
I have tried and spent a decent amount of time. It can generate absolutely brilliant scenes, dialogues, prose - better than a lot of professional writers. But it takes patience and effort. It is nowhere near the state of just generating a full chapter at demand with vague instructions. If you want good results, you will have to work for it. At this point it's still just a tool. And using it professionally is still work.
There's a great disconnect between people discussing AI in general. So many have only ever tried simpler base models, supplied by default on free ChatGPT tier, even including many actual scientists that hilariously publish research done on them, and come to some very... questionable conclusions as outcome. Entirely dismissing the fact that the more easily accessible models tend to have significantly lower intelligence. And the less said about using proper system instructions for the specific task, the better.
TL;DR: "AI" can refer to vastly different models, ranging from... let's say IQ 60 to 130, with entirely different strengths and weaknesses; and even the best of them (for a specific task) are only as good as the user. If you are willing to give it an honest chance, google "AI Sudio" and try Gemini 2.5 Pro, that's the top one today for texts. It's extremely capable. Warning: only use the 2.5 Pro in AI studio. Other sources of the same model supply it with their own custom instructions, significantly lowering the ceiling of what's possible due to the clash of their instructions (many hundreds of lines) and your instructions.
Those AI checkers are trash and a completely ineffective way to filter what you should or shouldn't read.I do find myself having to run every new story I read through an AI checker before I start to avoid wasting my time. This is pretty annoying when I am scanning through for new stuff to read. This is my only real problem with AI writing on the site, and would be partially resolved by mandating a tag for AI generated writing, but I don't know how much work and false positives this would create for the mod staff to deal with.
We've had at least one example of a guy killing himself due to GPT driving him (more) psychotic to get better ratings.We can agree that "I don't want to be hacked" is kind of a ridiculous instance here no? By that logic, there are hundreds of things we should tag so it's "safe" for people with very particular triggers.
Have you tried 1. using an advanced model that can both adhere to instructions and be intelligent about it? 2. defining a specific writing style by providing a large example? 3. holding it's hand and asking for very specific descriptions of events? 4. always concentrating on narrow scope? 5. going for a multi-pass workflow?
I have tried and spent a decent amount of time. It can generate absolutely brilliant scenes, dialogues, prose - better than a lot of professional writers. But it takes patience and effort. It is nowhere near the state of just generating a full chapter at demand with vague instructions. If you want good results, you will have to work for it. At this point it's still just a tool. And using it professionally is still work.
There's a great disconnect between people discussing AI in general. So many have only ever tried simpler base models, supplied by default on free ChatGPT tier, even including many actual scientists that hilariously publish research done on them, and come to some very... questionable conclusions as outcome. Entirely dismissing the fact that the more easily accessible models tend to have significantly lower intelligence. And the less said about using proper system instructions for the specific task, the better.
TL;DR: "AI" can refer to vastly different models, ranging from... let's say IQ 60 to 130, with entirely different strengths and weaknesses; and even the best of them (for a specific task) are only as good as the user. If you are willing to give it an honest chance, google "AI Sudio" and try Gemini 2.5 Pro, that's the top one today for texts. It's extremely capable. Warning: only use the 2.5 Pro in AI studio. Other sources of the same model supply it with their own custom instructions, significantly lowering the ceiling of what's possible due to the clash of their instructions (many hundreds of lines) and your instructions.
I'm sorry but this is borderline delusional (especially the art part). You can follow dangerous instructions from a Google search, trolls, abusive partners or any other source. In fact, it's the most likely avenue of danger for people who are mentally unwell (4chan, youtube, X, reddit's echo chambers).We've had at least one example of a guy killing himself due to GPT driving him (more) psychotic to get better ratings.
Hacking me personally sight unseen via art or (especially) stories made for someone else is probably out of reach for the moment. But I would much rather avoid taking unnecessary risks.
The only one that's saying that it's more effort that actually writing it yourself is you. That's what I call a skill issue. Especially if you really believe that last description.Yeah, no. You've proven my point for me, you're just making all the same points that have been said about every previous generation, dressing up "It can only actually work if you handhold it so thoroughly that it's more effort than actually writing it for yourself" as "capable of writing indistinguishably"
At that point it isn't writing indistinguishably, it's you writing through a deliberately more difficult method. It's the equivalent of a self-driving car where the human needs to constantly drive with the AI occasionally picking the right action. At that point it cannot legitimately be called self-driving. It's just you driving with a GPS that fights you. Or in the case of writing, it's just you writing with an algorithm generating nonsense that can occasionally be used fighting you.
I just hope that rule 1 is still enforced when people go too far, because they will. Many will likely just use that 'encouragement' as an excuse to bash either against AI or the author (for the suspicion of using AI at all).We encourage authors to tag for however they use AI in their writing process. Also, you are allowed and encouraged to ask authors to tag for AI if appropriate.
The reason we aren't making this a rule is because we have no reliable way of determining whether a work is AI-generated or not, and so we have no way of enforcing such a rule.
You're telling me you would only ever consider AI useful if it were capable of doing 100% of the work for you. Anything less is a waste of your time. That's a very... consumerist point of view. It's hard for me to relate.Yeah, no. You've proven my point for me, you're just making all the same points that have been said about every previous generation, dressing up "It can only actually work if you handhold it so thoroughly that it's more effort than actually writing it for yourself" as "capable of writing indistinguishably"
At that point it isn't writing indistinguishably, it's you writing through a deliberately more difficult method. It's the equivalent of a self-driving car where the human needs to constantly drive with the AI occasionally picking the right action. At that point it cannot legitimately be called self-driving. It's just you driving with a GPS that fights you. Or in the case of writing, it's just you writing with an algorithm generating nonsense that can occasionally be used fighting you.
The main issue with AI I find is the witch hunts. I don't really care myself so long as the result is good, but some people make a really big fuss over it.I just hope that rule 1 is still enforced when people go too far, because they will. Many will likely just use that 'encouragement' as an excuse to bash either against AI or the author (for the suspicion of using AI at all).
Not that I disagree with the suggestion of a tag or anything of the sort. It should, in theory, stop the bullshit at the door. Either they are OK with it or they shouldn't even open the thread.
By and large AI makes things accessible to people that couldn't do it before, but it has its limits. An AI can write a code snippet but not a coherent big program, just to take one example, and it's likewise poor with longer stories and more specific art since it tends to lose track of things. You need to guide its hand to get good content, and often much of what AI makes tends to end up a bit generic unless you specifically encourage it to do otherwise.You're telling me you would only ever consider AI useful if it were capable of doing 100% of the work for you. Anything less is a waste of your time. That's a very... consumerist point of view. It's hard for me to relate.
I do want to point out that you are wrong in your core belief - it stems from a faulty assumption. Yes, a professional writer might have a better time writing unassisted. However, not everyone is a professional writer. Most authors publishing online are various shades of casual. A lot of them would never manage to impress you on their own merit. I wouldn't have been able to write nearly as well by myself as with guiding an AI into shaping my ideas (not that I intend to publish, that's beside the point). To people lacking technical skills, there isn't any real trade-off. If they aim high but aren't interested enough to justify the effort of developing the skills, they only have one option. And that one option can work for them if they put in the effort.
Not what was said; emphasis mine:So no images of Jack The Ripper from Fate & Myne from Ascendence of a Bookworm railing each other? Unfortunate, but understandable.
One specific ruling regarding AI-generated images: we do not allow any images that depict people who appear to be under 18, in any sexually explicit context, in a "photorealistic" style. These images are too difficult to distinguish from content that is illegal to post, so we don't allow any of them.
Do those checkers even workI do find myself having to run every new story I read through an AI checker before I start to avoid wasting my time. This is pretty annoying when I am scanning through for new stuff to read. This is my only real problem with AI writing on the site, and would be partially resolved by mandating a tag for AI generated writing, but I don't know how much work and false positives this would create for the mod staff to deal with.
Even when trying to make capybaras it slaps an anime girl, truly the blessed child of humanity
You're telling me you would only ever consider AI useful if it were capable of doing 100% of the work for you. Anything less is a waste of your time. That's a very... consumerist point of view. It's hard for me to relate.
I do want to point out that you are wrong in your core belief - it stems from a faulty assumption. Yes, a professional writer might have a better time writing unassisted. However, not everyone is a professional writer. Most authors publishing online are various shades of casual. A lot of them would never manage to impress you on their own merit. I wouldn't have been able to write nearly as well by myself as with guiding an AI into shaping my ideas (not that I intend to publish, that's beside the point). To people lacking technical skills, there isn't any real trade-off. If they aim high but aren't interested enough to justify the effort of developing the skills, they only have one option. And that one option can work for them if they put in the effort.
Have you tried 1. using an advanced model that can both adhere to instructions and be intelligent about it? 2. defining a specific writing style by providing a large example? 3. holding it's hand and asking for very specific descriptions of events? 4. always concentrating on narrow scope? 5. going for a multi-pass workflow?
Source: trust me bro.
Have you tried 1. using an advanced model that can both adhere to instructions and be intelligent about it? 2. defining a specific writing style by providing a large example? 3. holding it's hand and asking for very specific descriptions of events? 4. always concentrating on narrow scope? 5. going for a multi-pass workflow?
They're a bit hit and miss, and they often are uncertain if something is AI, but when they give me a '100% of content is AI created' it is usually right.