Penalty for not disclosing ai work

[NInjakirito]

Oh my fucking god, why are so many people losing there minds over this? We've had this conversation a dozen times already and they never learn. AI generated fiction is not breaking the rules, it not even illegal and yet people insist on treating it like it is.

You don't need to like it, you don't need to support it, but you do need to stop restarting an arguement that has been made and answered many times. On the face of it policing AI-generated/edited works are impossible because it cannot be verified to be AI. AI has been around enough that even wholly original and human made works look like 'AI' because they learned to write after it became widespread and mimicked the popular style that many AI's used.

The mods really need to make a sticky banner in the S&B forum so these threads and arguements are constantly being repeated.

I don't even like AI, but this whole whiny 'AI BAD' with arguements that have already been made and answered is getting on my nerves.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

It's very much a problem for QQ, and for those actual writers. Your argument presumes that people won't just read less because they assume it's all slop, which is what anecdotally at least seems to be happening. It also assumes that the actual writers won't just be driven away from writing because there's no point when anything they do will be buried under the slop. Those people with writing as their only source of income had better look for a new one, because it's going away.

Click to shrink...

Obviously, I am one person and my work doesn't speak for everyone, but the advent of Ai has actually made it so clients are less likely to trust new authors but more likely to trust older authors they already know. Talking to my clients, several have admitted that they now prioritise me over anyone else because they know and trust I don't use AI.

So in a sense, the advent of Ai is creating a two tier system. If you're already in, you're getting people rallying around you but if you're not, it's becoming harder to earn trust with clients. The tldr on this one is that I am not so sure if it's quite as simple as the income simply going away. It's a lot more complicated than just that and it depends on what specifically you do and how you network.

 

[FTR2017]

... You keep using the word "abortion". That word does not mean what you think it means, it's emotive rather than reasonable. No argument can come to a conclusion without reason.

Click to shrink...

Sure, it is 'emotional'.

But, here's my retort:

It is a mangled corpse even when edited.

It is lacking in character as it is dead.

It shows no personality whatsoever, as it is dead.

It shows no care from the 'parent' to delegate to a virtual monkey with keyboard to string words along.

The only recognition they earn is by their lack of vitality.

Need I go on?

 

[Valthorix]

Sure, it is 'emotional'.

But, here's my retort:

It is a mangled corpse even when edited.

It is lacking in character as it is dead.

It shows no personality whatsoever, as it is dead.

It shows no care from the 'parent' to delegate to a virtual monkey with keyboard to string words along.

The only recognition they earn is by their lack of vitality.

Need I go on?

Click to shrink...

This feels like it was written by ai tbh

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

This feels like it was written by ai tbh

Click to shrink...

Doesn't that make a good point for the thread as a whole, though? This was clearly and obviously not written by Ai, but if it still seems like it is to you, that's a false positive. The exact kind of thing a lot of us are worried about.

 

[Valthorix]

Doesn't that make a good point for the thread as a whole, though? This was clearly and obviously not written by Ai, but if it still seems like it is to you, that's a false positive. The exact kind of thing a lot of us are worried about.

Click to shrink...

That's kinda why I made the post, beyond just wanting to annoy him. Everyone has their own definition of what AI writes like, and beyond a few common things like the em dash and 'its not x, it's y', there isn't really any way to tell definitively. Sure, gemini might write in a consistent way across various instances, but there isn't just one LLM out there. There's thousands. I personally have six installed on my computer, and they all write completely distinctly from one another. You simply can't say with certainty that something is written by an LLM because every single one of them has distinct training data that pulls from differing sources which produces different outputs.

 

[FTR2017]

That's kinda why I made the post, beyond just wanting to annoy him. Everyone has their own definition of what AI writes like, and beyond a few common things like the em dash and 'its not x, it's y', there isn't really any way to tell definitively. Sure, gemini might write in a consistent way across various instances, but there isn't just one LLM out there. There's thousands. I personally have six installed on my computer, and they all write completely distinctly from one another. You simply can't say with certainty that something is written by an LLM because every single one of them has distinct training data that pulls from differing sources which produces different outputs.

Click to shrink...

And yet, the obvious signs that I mentioned you ignored.

Go ahead and enjoy your AI trash, I'll focus on human-sourced products.

If a human learns to write from AI? They deserve to be ignored, there's a reason why a foundation of readers is to read works from known and influential writers to learn from them first. As much as it is a hobby? It is also work, and knowing of culture and how people behave and react in order to write about them.

Doesn't that make a good point for the thread as a whole, though? This was clearly and obviously not written by Ai, but if it still seems like it is to you, that's a false positive. The exact kind of thing a lot of us are worried about.

Click to shrink...

The man's a troll, I doubt an AI can write what I did.

 

[Valthorix]

And yet, the obvious signs that I mentioned you ignored.

Go ahead and enjoy your AI trash, I'll focus on human-sourced products.

If a human learns to write from AI? They deserve to be ignored, there's a reason why a foundation of readers is to read works from known and influential writers to learn from them first. As much as it is a hobby? It is also work, and knowing of culture and how people behave and react in order to write about them.

Click to shrink...

Ok so you're just an anti-AI elitist then, glad to see you take the mask off.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

People are understandably passionate about this topic, but bring the heat down a tad.

I don't think anyone has crossed the Rule 1 line yet, but a few posts are making me look twice, so let's work to prevent any further degeneration.

 

[ANGRY PUFFBALL]

The reason there are witch-hunts is because there are a whole pile of witches fucking us all over.

Let's be clear here, people who claim their writing isn't AI when it is, and use that to get donations? Those people are literal fraudsters breaking the law.

Click to shrink...

As opposed to all the people on here running patreons and such to make money off of fanfics for IP they don't own? Those people don't even have the fig leaf that they aren't doing their copyright violations for money to hide behind.

 

[ForestDweller]

Obviously, I am one person and my work doesn't speak for everyone, but the advent of Ai has actually made it so clients are less likely to trust new authors but more likely to trust older authors they already know. Talking to my clients, several have admitted that they now prioritise me over anyone else because they know and trust I don't use AI.

So in a sense, the advent of Ai is creating a two tier system. If you're already in, you're getting people rallying around you but if you're not, it's becoming harder to earn trust with clients. The tldr on this one is that I am not so sure if it's quite as simple as the income simply going away. It's a lot more complicated than just that and it depends on what specifically you do and how you network.

Click to shrink...

Essentially, art is going the way of designer shoes and clothes. There would always be people who will pay a high price for premium human made art for novelty or status symbol but for most people they'll be fine consuming cheap mass-produced art.

 

[protoss16]

Here is a good resource for helpful criticism of works that seem ai generated. https://forums.spacebattles.com/thr...ise-works-that-might-be-ai-generated.1307253/

 

[Povovanon]

Never ever a thread where "I, Lolilover88, declare that NaruSaku13, Elfucker2000, Zardoz11, AdultWomanEnjoyer_xxx, MetalFatiguefan are using AI to write their stories. They are lying at the readers... LYING!"
Never ever a Mod appearing on a white stallion known as Princess, "Thanks Lolilover88 with your words and evidences. And you, you, disgusting sloppers, I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island."

 

[CptTagon]

I'd be all for having a mandatory AI tag if it could be applied to AI 'content' only. Since there's no way to actually make that happen, sadly, I have to say I'm not in favor of mandatory tagging.

 

[Avernus]

Anecdotally, I also know soneone who stopped writing all together because of AI.

No, not because they were upset with how AI taking over everything or how they were being suppressed by slop.

They stopped writing because they got accused of using AI to write instead of doing it themselves.

Click to shrink...

Which is one reason why "AI" is going to destroy writing and art as an institution if it isn't somehow suppressed or rendered identifiable. Most people aren't going to bother showing off their work to others when they know everyone will reasonably assume they are a liar. When lying is the norm it is very hard to convince people you are speaking the truth. And "AI" is a very effective lie machine, swamping society in falsehood.

"There is no possible state a human can occupy where having help getting their ideas onto the a doc without banging their head against the Writer's Block will help them develop the confidence that they can be a writer on the merit of their ideas and delve into doing more of the work themselves instead of looking at 'good' writers getting vitriol and assuming that it would be a wasted effort to even start trying to tell a story."

Click to shrink...

It's not their ideas, not their story, and not their work. They are just taking credit for the work of a machine.

You wanna know why ye olde artists had *dedicated* patrons? It was a two-sided curation dynamic that kept the artists on track in making art with a personal assurance of their physical needs while maintaining their dignity enough that they would make sure that whatever they created was *good*.

Click to shrink...

No, it meant that they were employees who created what they were told; no different than a modern artist drawing up images for an advertising campaign (until they were rendered unemployed by "AI", at least).

"But how will writers make a living?"
A) maybe spend a little time actually looking at your reason why any human being needs to earn the right to live in our society.

Click to shrink...

Because the same people forcing "AI" on everyone want it that way.

 

[magic9mushroom]

As opposed to all the people on here running patreons and such to make money off of fanfics for IP they don't own? Those people don't even have the fig leaf that they aren't doing their copyright violations for money to hide behind.

Click to shrink...

TTBOMK nobody's actually pursued a fanfic case far enough to get case law on whether it's illegal (the question is "transformative works"). They've all ended in one party or another giving up before verdict, and not always the fanfic writer.

I'll admit, I'm also opposed to copyright - but "fraud should be illegal" falls out of almost any serious ethical system much more obviously than copyright.

 

[Avernus]

I'll admit, I'm also opposed to copyright - but "fraud should be illegal" falls out of almost any serious ethical system much more obviously than copyright.

Click to shrink...

Yes. Copyright is a relatively recent concept, and many have questioned if it does more harm than good. But it's hard to see how you could have much of a society if fraud wasn't punished. And people just won't stand for it. Putting it into law just means you aren't faced with the much more destructive alternative of "everyone get some clubs and you and the boys can go over and teach that fraud a lesson".

 

[lurkingkraken]

Which is one reason why "AI" is going to destroy writing and art as an institution if it isn't somehow suppressed or rendered identifiable. Most people aren't going to bother showing off their work to others when they know everyone will reasonably assume they are a liar. When lying is the norm it is very hard to convince people you are speaking the truth. And "AI" is a very effective lie machine, swamping society in falsehood.

Click to shrink...

No.

It wasn't that everyone reasonably assumed they were lying.

It's that people like you, who are convinced that AI will destroy art, starting hounding him about AI use and refused to believe his denial, and then followed up by continuing their attacks into not just writing but other aspects of life, and pursuing onto discord.

AI didn't drive him off.
People witch-hunting did.
Most people reasonably assumed he was telling the truth and accepted that he just wasn't that good a writer.
But that doesn't help when one or more people decide that they know better and that they can sniff out AI use with perfect accuracy. (I say one or more because it's unclear if it was one person with a bunch of accounts/sockpuppets or a small circle of AI haters)
This site has buttons to let you ignore threads.
So just use it when you think someone is using AI. And don't interact with their threads and stories.
And if enough people agree with you, the thread will get no interaction.
And without interaction, if they are using AI to try and get eyes/views/attention, they will wither away and stop.
The belief that everyone is using AI as a default lies behind the belief that it is reasonable to believe that people are lying about not using AI.
Don't use that as an excuse to persecute artists and writers.

AI won't destroy writing. It will sap individual users of AI of the skills to produce anything other than mediocre work, and it will contribute to the flood of terrible writing - a flood that already exists thanks to the wonders of self publishing - but the only way it will destroy writing and art if if you let yourself think that everyone is using AI and no one is doing anything without it.

Do I find it annoying how fast it is to gen a bunch of mediocre and formulaic images? Yes. Yes I do. Do I find myself noticing how AI generated images tend to follow the same patterns the vast majority of the time? Also yes.
But does this mean that I assume everyone is using AI?
No.

It's not their ideas, not their story, and not their work. They are just taking credit for the work of a machine.

Click to shrink...

This is true, but also irrelevant for whether it's good to read or not. Death of the author means that the author doesn't matter, so whether it's a machine output or not is irrelevant to whether it's good - note that while obviously I do agree that something that is solely produced by AI is likely to be very mid and average, that still means it's better than a lot of people. Statistically average output means that a bad writer will find it amazing after all.
Alternatively, if you don't believe in death of the author, then again all you have to do is just not interact, since taking credit for something is worthless if no one is giving you credit for it in the first place.
None of this requires witch-hunting people.

It's fine to dislike AI. I dislike AI.
It's not fine to witch-hunt people over whether they may be using AI.

And on the nature of the request at the start of this thread, it's also been well established that mandatory tags aren't going to fly here, at least in part because that would be a lot of work for the moderators that they don't need to do when the user can just use the ignore thread button instead.

Yes. Copyright is a relatively recent concept, and many have questioned if it does more harm than good. But it's hard to see how you could have much of a society if fraud wasn't punished. And people just won't stand for it. Putting it into law just means you aren't faced with the much more destructive alternative of "everyone get some clubs and you and the boys can go over and teach that fraud a lesson".

Click to shrink...

The difference is that someone using an LLM - and really we should be calling it an LLM and not AI since it's not really intelligent - is usually not the same person who trained the AI.
Most people using it don't really seem to get how much of it is just statistically averaged output.
But more importantly - this argument isn't one that will convince people using AI not to use it.
Calling them fraud would only work if and when they already agree that AI is fraud.
Otherwise they'll just tell you that they made the prompt so they made the output.
Preaching to the choir is performative but won't make a difference.
Instead just - you know - heavily criticizing content and tone and word choice and also - and more importantly - not joining any patreon/subscibestar/kofi both provides the feedback that may eventually allow them to learn how words and sentences work and go together - which would free them from thinking they need to use AI - and denies them the monetary feedback that provides encouragement that AI is useful as a side gig/passive income generator.

 

[magic9mushroom]

But more importantly - this argument isn't one that will convince people using AI not to use it.
Calling them fraud would only work if and when they already agree that AI is fraud.

Click to shrink...

I'd suggest following the quote chain back; this is severely misconstruing what we were talking about.

People who post AI stories and admit they're AI are definitely not fraudsters. It's the ones who claim their AI stories to be human-made in order to get people to pay them that we said were committing fraud (like, they're lying about a product to induce people to buy it; this is a textbook case of fraud). And we weren't trying to convince fraudsters to stop defrauding people; we were merely noting that they ought to be punished by the court system.

 

[FTR2017]

Instead just - you know - heavily criticizing content and tone and word choice and also - and more importantly - not joining any patreon/subscibestar/kofi both provides the feedback that may eventually allow them to learn how words and sentences work and go together - which would free them from thinking they need to use AI - and denies them the monetary feedback that provides encouragement that AI is useful as a side gig/passive income generator.

Click to shrink...

This is a proper way of dealing with this nonsense.

 

[RedStarMini]

genuinely why are these threads (suggestions regarding moderation of AI generated content) kept open for discussion when it's clear there really aren't any good solutions the mods can take that would both be feasible for the forum and the mods? It devolves into an AI general rants, discourse, and shitflinging thread which is far better served by other already existing places on these forums.

 

[lurkingkraken]

It's the ones who claim their AI stories to be human-made in order to get people to pay them that we said were committing fraud (like, they're lying about a product to induce people to buy it; this is a textbook case of fraud). And we weren't trying to convince fraudsters to stop defrauding people; we were merely noting that they ought to be punished by the court system.

Click to shrink...

You misunderstand me.
Many of those people using AI and then calling it thier own work don't think they are commiting fraud! There are of course people who use AI and then claim they aren't with the intent to trick people.
But there are also people who use AI and then use minimal editing and think that makes it their own, or who think that because they have had to reprompt several times that it makes it now their own work and not just AI output.
To them, AI written work means what would happen if you just type "next" or "continue the scene" or similar; because they are proving heavy input into the output it makes it no longer AI written but Human-made, with minimal AI use - after all, the AI isn't coming up with it all on its own.
Becuase to these people, the AI is actually an intelligence and not just a LLM. So from thier perspective they are collaborating with a cowriter, which means they are still a writer.
Which again means that calling it fraud won't convince them that it is fraud, because they don't see it as AI written in the same way you or I would.

Becuase while I would agree with you that using AI and saying you didn't is fraud, there are a couple of different philosophies regarding how much AI is needed before it counts as AI written. Raw output? Lightly edited? Storyboarding? Any use of the grammarly spellchecker?
And then there are also those who realize that they've committed to being 15 chapter ahead and then realize that it's not always easy to be that productive, and resort to AI to try and not disappoint without realizing that using AI is itself disappointing and that the correct answer would to be to apologize and refund and commit to a slower update pace.
Especially since there are AI boosters out there arguing that the output of AI is your output, since you made the prompts, and in any case being the orchestrator and conductor of your story is the same thing as being the writer. And AI is designed to tell you that you are great and your ideas are great and that using AI to help you write is just great. And that's before you get into people disingenuously bringing up ghostwriters; KA Applegate didn't write every Animorphs book but still got the author's credit on them, and so you could argue that the use of an AI is analogous once you've gotten enough done yourself to have established the style - I personally don't agree with this but I have seen this argument.
While I personally fall on the side that once it's looking at more than a two word window to check for tense mismatch and missing pluralizations, what counts as enough AI to be AI written m is a question that different people have differing answers to.

and then! comes the question of how to prove that they used AI, and that in turn leads to the problem that it's possible to write in a way that mimics AI.
I can manually write the phrase "Next, come up with an example to illustrate my point" and litter my writing with what could be prompts, and write in that mediocre AI style, but that's not proof of AI use, it's putting the hand before the hose. And that's real.
By which I mean, any attempt to prosecute fraudulent use of AI has a heavy burden of proving that it is AI and not just really bad and deliberately provocative writing, as the preceding paragraph demonstrates; much of AI writing is really really formulaic which means it's easy to copy the formula - I deliberately avoided the phrase "move the needle" in my previous post exactly because of how often I've seen it in what are very likely LLM generated Reddit posts over the last few months.
Legal and medical cases generally catch it by use of fabricated references and factual errors.
But creative writing - well, there was someone on the Spacebattles link who pointed out that suddenly changing details and characters acting out of character have existed for a long time. I had forgotten about the Protectors of the Plot Continuum until they were brought up but promptly remembered that l they did run into stories that would have had hallmarks of AI use if analyzed today, what with shifting details and suddenly different plotlines and characters reacting to internal monologues as if they were actually dialogue.

I've drifted from what I was trying to say, but to attempt to summarize my overall point: making people label their works as AI or not AI invites debate on whether it is AI written or not and how honest the tags are, and that in turn leads to a debate over what amount of AI makes it AI - a debate that is muddled by tools such as grammarly and different opinions over whether any AI use taints the whole work or not, since how much AI use is too much is somewhat subjective depending on your personal philosophy.

 

[Avernus]

It's that people like you, who are convinced that AI will destroy art, starting hounding him about AI use and refused to believe his denial, and then followed up by continuing their attacks into not just writing but other aspects of life, and pursuing onto discord.

Click to shrink...

I haven't done anything like that. I have however started reading a lot less new work, which also drives away writers.

It's understandable that people wouldn't believe him in a situation where lying is not only common but permitted. When it's not possible to tell the difference between truth and lies, the sensible thing to due is assume everyone is a liar.

This site has buttons to let you ignore threads.
So just use it when you think someone is using AI. And don't interact with their threads and stories.
And if enough people agree with you, the thread will get no interaction.
And without interaction, if they are using AI to try and get eyes/views/attention, they will wither away and stop.

Click to shrink...

That doesn't work, any more than it does for email spam. Since it takes no effort to have the machine endlessly spam slop and falsely claim credit for it, they'll continue to do so even if only one person in a thousand likes it. For that matter it's likely only a matter of time before somebody starts providing "AI" poster bots that follow threads and fakepost approval of the story to feed the fantasy.

The belief that everyone is using AI as a default lies behind the belief that it is reasonable to believe that people are lying about not using AI.
Don't use that as an excuse to persecute artists and writers.

Click to shrink...

Have you actually listened to what artists and writers say about using "AI"? They are all-in on the persecution.

AI won't destroy writing. It will sap individual users of AI of the skills to produce anything other than mediocre work, and it will contribute to the flood of terrible writing - a flood that already exists thanks to the wonders of self publishing - but the only way it will destroy writing and art if if you let yourself think that everyone is using AI and no one is doing anything without it.

Click to shrink...

It will destroy writing and art if not stopped because nobody will bother writing anything when nobody will notice it in the flood of slop. People will stop taking writing and art classes because it's useless, and in a generation or two there will be nothing but oceans of slop with no human input. No one will even bother to complain either because any comment they make will also be buried in slop.

 

[spktr alpha]

The Mods don't have the time and energy to be conscripted into a unenforceable and pointless task.

I don't understand why this topic keeps coming up.

If someone wants to make an AI wall of shame then they can waste their own time sifting through threads and arguing with writers and fans.

 

[Jao]

>kink shaming

Click to shrink...

Nah, from what I read they just pointed out popular tags, obviously tags that are popular have a higher amount of "slop" compared to other tags due to having a higher amount of fics.

 

[ZacSunTiBidea]

Writing has been "destroyed" as an art field for decades, and most folk cheered at the death throes being shouted down with "the curtain is just blue!"

And the groups of people who are only now gung-ho about "saving" it have almost zero overlap with the groups who can actually articulate *anything* that makes a given story 'good' or 'poor'.

Honestly, it's kind of hilarious. I don't hear anthing about "AI doesn't have consistent themes" or "AI doesn't abide by tone metering".
It's all "I can see repetetive phrasings!" Or "Look at this structuring of sentences!" Or some other way of outright dismissing amateur writers who lack formal tutelage or the patience to lurk and obsessively hone themselves in paper journals.

Like, if you actually give a fuck about the quality of writing, why not band together to re-establish real standards for writers and readers?
Why is that "not doing enough" to you?

No really. To anyone in this thread bitching about the quality of stories: why not start with standards of quality that show you actually care?

"But the repetition!"

2000s fanfics. Go fucking read(or reread) them. Give yourself a fresh perspective on the history of just the modern web's lifetime.

Start with being a quality reader. Not with being a kneejerk activist.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Writing has been "destroyed" as an art field for decades, and most folk cheered at the death throes being shouted down with "the curtain is just blue!"

Click to shrink...

As a professional writer, I can assure you that writing has not, in fact, been destroyed as a field of art. I did it yesterday. Unless you're defining art so strictly that no modern writing can qualify in which case I'd question if any kind of art can stand up that level of scrutiny.

And the groups of people who are only now gung-ho about "saving" it have almost zero overlap with the groups who can actually articulate *anything* that makes a given story 'good' or 'poor'.

Click to shrink...

A story is good when people enjoy it. When it can touch people, when it can make them feel emotions, put thoughts in their mind. when you as a writer are able to put your soul to the page and write something that has meaning to you, no matter how cliche or trite it may seem to others.

That is inarguably art.

Art is in connection. Art is in emotion. Art is in being human and sharing your humanity with others. Believe it or not, art isn't even about quality. A shitty, badly written story can still art. It doesn't need to be complex either. it doesn't need to have hidden meanings or layer upon layer of symbols and metaphors. At the end of the day, a story is a little thing. A flickering light against the vastness of the world we live in. it's small and puny, but it says ''I was here. I made this. This is a part of me and even when I am gone, it will still be here and so I will still be here.''

This also is why I can never accept AI. At the end of the day, ignoring everything else like stolen stuff or career threats or what have you, stories written by AI are not that. They are not a part of their creator, they don't carry the spark of that connection. No matter how good they are, or what quality they have, they can never have that same humanity which traces back from writers now to the very first people to put pen to paper so long ago we'll never even know who they were.

From the first stories put down so long ago that we don't remember them now all the way to the ones yet to be written, that is the core of what it means to be a writer.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

genuinely why are these threads (suggestions regarding moderation of AI generated content) kept open for discussion when it's clear there really aren't any good solutions the mods can take that would both be feasible for the forum and the mods? It devolves into an AI general rants, discourse, and shitflinging thread which is far better served by other already existing places on these forums.

Click to shrink...

At least on my part, I've left it open because it's still mostly kept on-topic rather than being filled with tangents, and it hasn't turned into a dumpster fire (or even generated any reports). People could definitely use one of the many existing general AI threads for this discussion, but it doesn't really matter that they're having it here, in a place with a more narrowly focused OP.

If anyone is fed up with the discussion, because it isn't going to affect moderation, or they've seen all the talking points before, they can just not read the thread. *shrugs*

 

[Lady Naga]

I will say, I'm having the Abe Simpson moment when I was having this same exact conversation about social media and not giving corporations your IDs and personal information. It's like, "No, you can't use this thing, it's not inevitable, just fight social media use forums!"

 

[UrsaTempest]

Well, we've more or less agree on what to decide on the topic ('Nothing'), so not much reason to go on.

I don't find writing (assisted by) AI generally interesting - if I really want them, I can just throw whatever half-baked idea I got on LLM. Heck, I don't even need to pay, some of local ones can be as small as three gigs - unless you're on dial-up or stuck on stingy mobile data plan (massive condolence!), you can just get it quick. Why would I want yours?

So, yes. It's human that's not me that write them is what make it interesting.