Litbowl

It was a novelty; it’s still a novelty. Your slopaganda is pointless here

You’re just making things up. I can’t imagine literally anyone had “all their friends” try the slop machines and all kept using it. I certainly have the opposite experience where some people briefly tried things out then stopped using for many reasons or just lack of use.

I don’t agree it “doesn’t have”; I just think it doesn’t have any for which the ostensible positives aren’t drastically outweighed by the definite negatives. it also does not have 100s of millions “choosing”; that includes everyone having this shit forced on them at work, school, etc.

From @theferocity.bsky.social's book, Alive at the End of the World. Get it here: bit.ly/saeedalive

#poem #books #writing

That second number, at least, is completely made up by an order of magnitude. 95%+ of "users" are free/not paying customers.

Thank you for helping correct this, have seen a lot of (well-intentioned) misinfo about it!

Personally, I think the only reasonable ultimate outcome (and of course one that discourages plagiarism machine use) is that any work touched by any generative AI software, period, needs extraordinarily detailed documentation of every single moment/outcome of that use, otherwise no copyright.

And obviously part of that fuzziness you mentioned, for example someone who wrote part of a book but had AI heavily "edit" it, sometimes generate full sentences or paragraphs, intermixed etc.

And specifically to reject AI-generated portions of work even if human involvement in the rest (which makes sense).

This is great. Is there a similar resource for non "family-friendly" spaces? Like, thinking about local bars where all the non children/family-related issues are huge (especially things like potential stalking/abuse of women), not to mention general grotesque violation of social space.

I love finding a poem for the exact feeling of a morning.

From Timothy Liu's book, Say Goodnight: bookshop.org/a/862/9781556590856

#poem #books #writing

The fact that every single admin person in the article seems to think the problem is using OUTDATED chatbots, not the entire endeavor...

I love finding a poem for the exact feeling of a morning.

From Timothy Liu's book, Say Goodnight: bookshop.org/a/862/9781556590856

#poem #books #writing

I occasionally check just for amusement. I'm of course on many "overly negative about AI" lists, but somehow also was added to an "AI booster" list!

When I’m an editor, the editor is always right, and when I’m an author, the editor is often right

Bulls vs. Suns 2026 not quite the same, but a perfect day to post this brilliant poem nonetheless.

From @joseolivarez.bsky.social's book, Promises of Gold: bit.ly/promisesofgold

#poem #books #writing

Hell, often, it doesn't know about decisions INSIDE the immediate context box!

Bulls vs. Suns 2026 not quite the same, but a perfect day to post this brilliant poem nonetheless.

From @joseolivarez.bsky.social's book, Promises of Gold: bit.ly/promisesofgold

#poem #books #writing

Well shit, and I'm supposed to be the editor... :P

What I hate is how difficult it is to even talk about that. Because this is exactly how I'd phrase it, but "themselves" is itself terrible language when I think about it again. I guess, "make it illegal for chatbot makers to make chatbots whose outputs use the first person"? Lol

Yeah my biggest issue is that Grammarly et. al. have intentionally and grotesquely obfuscated this. I know of quite literally no current commonly used software (or of course AI model) that "only" addresses grammar/proofreading.

As I said to someone the other day, it's gotta be really weird for certain writers to go from "I really wish they'd stop stealing my political/military thrillers and regurgitating them as slop" to "and also I, uh, really hope my stolen thrillers don't result in actual nukes getting launched..."

“You have so many reasons to end it all!”

Oh that last line.

From Catherine Barnett's book, Human Hours: bookshop.org/a/862/9781555978143

#poem #books #writing

As I said to someone the other day, it's gotta be really weird for certain writers to go from "I really wish they'd stop stealing my political/military thrillers and regurgitating them as slop" to "and also I, uh, really hope my stolen thrillers don't result in actual nukes getting launched..."

Eh, the years-long assault on the entire nature of human culture, connection & creativity probably isn't worth the "fun" in the end, even though I continue working for it (the "fun" being essentially every dime of revenue these companies ever have made being given to the people they stole from :) )

I'm certainly curious to see!

I feel particularly uncharitable toward Anthropic in fact, because I view their "ethics" as essentially entirely a PR stunt, and because (from the theft/copyright angle where I'm focused) they are by far the most egregiously infringing/directly plagiarizing in "creative" outputs.

And come on, framing that as a GOOD of Anthropic (a case where they argued fair use, argued even the full-scale piracy was fine, and got off very easy overall)... lol.

As long as their work is only used in an opt-in fashion with licensing/their consent, not a pittance paid after!