Clarification regarding AI policy

[Zaru]

As far as QQ is concerned, go for it. We have no rules around that.

Click to shrink...

Okay cool. Was just asking on clarification. Thanks Chief

 

[TheHoneyPot]

In my opinion its fine to use A.I. as a tool, but I really hate it when I encounter lazy 'authors' who spam A.I. slob without bothering to check it's content over for things like consistency, continuity, contradictions, and continued incorrect data.

I am already seeking walled gardens online to avoid A.I. slob...

Spoiler: Or ninja reposters

(or people just reposting the same as another within a few days of another on places like WN without checking with the actual author and then having the balls to hooking their own patreon/donation stuff up to it by claiming they translated it like the 10 others earlier that same week [even when its a perfectly fine written in english already story])

Hell, I generally am not fond of the implications it has in the job market having already been severely affected by it but I understand and respect its use as a tool but not as a replacement for any cognitive thinking on the users part.

Its very annoying to read a story where the author starts out strong only to lose interests and just use A.I. prompts to write it for them without even minimal checks or editing to make it work.

One of my loves for QQ is that it has the option to just stop seeing stuff from an poster all together. Which is great in this new era we find ourselves in. I wish more fanfic communities had this option. If its not tagged, I just use the ignore function if its absolute slob being posted by someone.

That avoids the hope of false alerts for a good new story. If it's tagged, I tend to atleast hope that its someone who cares enough to keep a creative hand in the process.

 

[BreezyWheeze]

Rules don't have to be perfect to be impactful. There are many real world examples of rules, guidelines, international treaties even that have no meaningful enforcement mechanism, yet they vastly impact behavior.

Returning your shopping cart to the appropriate spot is not required. There's no fine or prison time if you fail to do so. AND YET, in places where there's large, clear signs and easy-to-access spots to return your cart, people are more likely to do so.

Default choices are EXTREMELY powerful, even when theres no enforcement mechanism tied to them. The classic example is organ donors - when you have to opt out (the default is that your are an organ donor) the rate at which needy patients are able to get donor organs is radically higher than places that use an opt-in system.

All this hand-wringing about "theres no perfect enforcement mechanism" or "theres no flawless detection" is a bunch of absolute BS.

You could radically cut down on unflagged AI slop by simply making a default system where authors are required to select the level of AI usage - a simple dropdown that says "AI used to generate most/all text - AI used to generate some text - AI used to edit or beta read - AI not used at all" and have the dropdown be required when starting a new thread would go a LONG way, even if there were literally no rule or enforcement associated with the tag.

 

[Zanderion]

All this hand-wringing about "theres no perfect enforcement mechanism" or "theres no flawless detection" is a bunch of absolute BS.

Click to shrink...

Notably here your next suggestion don't actually solve any the issues mentioned before. Fair being fair, there could be some merit in having it listed as option in making new threads. But that doesn't actually answer any issues with enforcement or detection. It instead a sideways approach of looking for solution, an attempt to avoid the issues rather that solving it. So, the issue with enforcement and detection is in fact, not bullshit at all.

EDIT: also note that those issues were pointed out in the first place because people demanded tagging being mandatory and enforced. If people were simply asking for a means to encourage users to tag their stories but without enforcement, those issues were not going to come up. That is to say, if there's 'absolute BS' here, its more on the request than the objection.

You could radically cut down on unflagged AI slop by simply making a default system where authors are required to select the level of AI usage - a simple dropdown that says "AI used to generate most/all text - AI used to generate some text - AI used to edit or beta read - AI not used at all" and have the dropdown be required when starting a new thread would go a LONG way, even if there were literally no rule or enforcement associated with the tag.

Click to shrink...

OK. Here's a very simple way to have this be implemented: You -and this not a generaly 'you', I really mean you, BreezyWheeze here, or at least anyone who support your idea- hire some programmers to code this as a Xenforo add on. Then offer QQ a free (perpetual) lisence to use the add on. Better still if you release it for free for anyone to use. Make sure to provide troubleshooting service for add on conflict or whatever bugs that may arise

This doesn't guarantee that QQ will implement the add on, there could be other qualifiers to consider. Among other things, implementing an add on is not necessarily straightforward - there could be various error arising in implementation due to bugs, conflict with other add ons, etc. But when a feature is available and freely so, the likelyhood of a website to implement it rise sharply compared to if the site have to code/comission it themself.

Before anyone ask 'how hard it could be to code a simple drop down menu?'. Well, if its really easy to do it surely its not hard at all for someone to provide this to QQ free of charge?