@hellfrog said in AI In Poses:

wow wow
wonder where they are from? what happened in the mushing world

I don’t want to ruin the plot of Serial Experiments Lain for you, but…

My crystal ball is telling me they’re from a chan, of some sort. Perhaps a chan of 4s, if you will…

wow wow
wonder where they are from? what happened in the mushing world

I don’t want to ruin the plot of Serial Experiments Lain for you, but…

But there’s plenty of discussion on r/MUD, and MUDs are still being made!

I am apparently in Reviewer #2 brain these days whenever I look at any research work.

I’m right there with you. I literally did a whole homeschool lesson with my kids on that whitepaper, showing how to think critically about the potential biases and how the company frames the results.

Anyway, I didn’t dive too deep into the underlying studies themselves, focusing on the meta-analysis part. @Trashcan was right to point out that some of them were pretty dated.

Good to be skeptical, but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. More like “5 out of 6 doctors agree!” advertising. It is a meta-analysis of studies that (as far as I can tell) were done by other people. There are still a host of potential biases in play. My general point was that even with all those potential biases, they’re still admitting that sometimes they’re only getting a “B”.

Good call-out here! I am apparently in Reviewer #2 brain these days whenever I look at any research work. It’s great that they discussed their limitations and identified that there will still be some cases where they’ll miss the mark. I completely overlooked that part of your previous post!

while I’m not disputing that Originality.ai is good as I’ve never used it, this is the same vibe as “we have investigated ourselves and found that we’re the best”

Good to be skeptical, but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. More like “5 out of 6 doctors agree!” advertising. It is a meta-analysis of studies that (as far as I can tell) were done by other people. There are still a host of potential biases in play. My general point was that even with all those potential biases, they’re still admitting that sometimes they’re only getting a “B”.

@MisterBoring said in AI In Poses:

“I don’t want to RP with GenAI because I’m here to RP with real people.”

This. But also: “I think GenAI is terrible and I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I especially don’t want my poses fed into their plagiarism machine.”

I don’t really care how good it is. Even if they fixed every single one of its flaws and it was a better RPer than everyone else I’d ever played with, I still wouldn’t want to play with someone using it.

This white paper, published by Originality.ai, which concluded that Originality.ai is the best checker,

while I’m not disputing that Originality.ai is good as I’ve never used it, this is the same vibe as “we have investigated ourselves and found that we’re the best”

Well, except maybe also ‘I don’t want to RP with AI, and it’s against the rules, so people using AI are breaking the rules, ban them.’

“I don’t want to RP with GenAI because it’s not very good” is not going to age well as a position.

I think the better position is “I don’t want to RP with GenAI because I’m here to RP with real people.”

If there is any takeaway from what I’ve argued in these threads, it is that specifics matter and none of this is static. That is why opposition to GenAI cannot be based on the quality of the experience, it must be based on the nature of the experience. “I don’t want to RP with GenAI because it’s not very good” is not going to age well as a position.

@somasatori Or even if you do recognise those as “problems,” it reads more like the typical wannabe Wordsworth or Hemingway crap that I attempt whenever I get too big for my britches.

Yeah exactly. When I ran some old “overdramatically wordsmithy” poses through the AI checkers, it flagged those too. I just question their methodology.

@Trashcan said in AI In Poses:

Not a huge sample size, of course, but I thought it was interesting.

That is interesting, thanks for sharing.

And look, even as a skeptic I’m not saying that the AI checkers don’t work at all. That’s clearly not the case. But I did find this interesting whitepaper from Originality.AI. A couple things that stood out to me:

1. No single tool was the best in every study, and there was significant variance in tool performance across studies. This suggests that the effectiveness of these tools may vary greatly by how you’re using it. (which isn’t great if you want something reliable)

2. Even the tool that’s claiming it’s the best only got a B+ in a couple of the studies. Maybe that’s good enough for some purposes, but it gives me pause.

can’t keep the details of Evelyn’s backstory straight, forgets that she has a fan in her hand from one pose to the next, doesn’t take into account how the scene she had last month would affect her dealings with Edward, etc. And heaven help you with theme consistency if the RP is happening in an original or lesser-known setting.

i have been an ai the entire time, guys

that’s why i do all these things

And then I checked @Tez’s original desc.

Not a huge sample size, of course, but I thought it was interesting.