#how to make a website using chatgpt

[buildoffshore44]

Hire Certified ChatGPT App Developers for AI-Powered Solutions

Unlock the full potential of conversational AI by hiring certified ChatGPT app developers. Our experts specialize in building smart, intuitive, and scalable AI applications tailored to your business needs. Whether you’re creating a chatbot, automating workflows, or enhancing customer engagement, our developers deliver excellence at every stage. Explore our proven expertise in ChatGPT development services to bring your vision to life. With a focus on innovation and functionality, we ensure your AI-powered solution stands out in today’s competitive digital space. Get started with a dedicated ChatGPT development team that turns your ideas into intelligent, real-world applications.

[geddy-leesbian]

pleasant surprise: I've noticed that picsart finally stopped shoving AI down my throat. for a very long time any time I searched for stickers or a background I'd have to scroll through miles of AI slop to get to anything I would actually want to use. since starting my RE4 mods, there's literally only been one time an AI sticker showed up in a search.

[dullahandyke]

sidenote speaking of polls that infuriated me, that poll like 'does a story require themes to be good' was sent from hell to kill me

[say-duhnelle]

@official-kircheis (and @ot3 if you agree) there is a MAJOR difference between using a calculator to do the arithmetic quickly on a problem where you still have to comprehend the question being asked, set up the solution correctly, and do some of the algebra and simplification yourself so the problem can be entered in a form the calculator can solve, and just dumping your essay prompt into ChatGPT and letting it make the decision about what your opinion even is, as well as what evidence you will use to defend it, what phrasing you will use, and so on. One of these is using the labor-saving device to do the slow tedious stuff so that the assignment can focus on your ability to actually understand the mathematics being taught, and the other is using the labor-saving device to skip out on doing the assignment entirely, do you understand that?

Not to mention - with very few exceptions, any highschool and higher level math exams set by competent instructors will also have a "non-calculator" portion that uses problems with conveniently easy arithmetic so the focus is entirely on the student's ability to do math and not their ability to work a calculator. This includes the SAT and AP exams, at least when I took them.

Anyway - I've never seen ANYTHING out of an LLM that sounded like it was written by someone more advanced than a moderately intelligent highschool sophomore. The sentence structure is always very simple, the vocabulary is pretty limited (as you would expect from a machine that basically functions by choosing the most popular word to come next), and it's more suited to the book-report type "here is what happened in this text" than any sort of actual analysis or synthesis of themes in literature or historical events or philosophical arguments or whatever. So even if having ChatGPT do all the work for you does somehow equate to actually learning the information (it doesn't), it won't get you past the 10th grade (or really past the 8th grade if you want to be a straight-A honors student).

Unfortunately for the mindset of many on Tumblr, sometimes doing something right and in a way that lasts DOES actually take effort from the person trying to do it, and the accompanying discomfort (whether that be physical or mental) just has to be borne. That's just life on Planet Earth, regardless of what you pursue in it. Yes, there are disabilities that make this harder. The proper way to accommodate folks with those disabilities is not letting them skip out on the learning process entirely by outsourcing it to a computer that they won't even take with them all their lives, but to give instruction and assignments that are appropriate for the level where they are and what they can handle (or, in some cases, to give resources that allow them to work on the same level as the abled e.g. assignments in Braille or a reader for a vision-impaired student). Then grade based on how well they learn that rather than in comparison to the abled.

every time i see a post about not using chatgpt or other LLMs for work/school that boils down to 'convenience is morally wrong and desiring it degrades the entire human race' rather than 'these things fabricate details and are not reliable tools for synthesizing information' i lose another year off of my life

[hypnotic-wine-dove]

Generative AI has no right to be in HelPol spaces .ᐟ.ᐟ

I can say honestly that I have used generative AI in the past. I have never used ChatGPT but to say I haven’t at all would be disingenuous.

Me and my partner found a website that generated memes (awfully) and found it funny. This was about early 2024, it was a one time thing, and it hasn’t been touched since. (This Meme Does Not Exist) — I acknowledge that a year ago we probably should’ve known, I’m not sure why we didn’t think about it, we truly didn’t know.

I have also looked at Google’s AI for a quick answer before scrolling down or even closing the tab entirely. I feel so guilty about my contribution, more so that I did that at the same time I started practicing paganism, but I want to say I apologise and will not knowingly use, post, or spread AI going forward. Especially for Google, I will think about looking past the AI overview no matter how “easy” it will be to get an answer. (I mention this later)

Since last year, AI has exploded, with people encouraging it to people giving all they got to remove it. I learned very quickly how harmful AI is not only for the environment but for creators. AI is generative PURELY because it takes from others, it can never make something of its own. Talk of AI is everywhere on the internet by now, there aren’t many excuses to not have at least heard something about its negative impact.

Before I left school, I saw my peers boast openly about how they used ChatGPT and even had a teacher of mine encourage it. I found it shocking. This isn’t a matter of struggling with school work and assignments, this is not being able to think for yourselves. Find your teacher, find a tutor, find a textbook, find online resources. That’s the issue. As said earlier, it’s easy and fast. People want answers? Want something funny? Boom. It’s there. That’s how people get sucked into it.

Back to HelPol spaces

Using AI to write posts about Hellenic Polytheism straight up rips off actual academic authors !! and other Tumblr users. Using AI to generate “art” of the gods takes from actual artists who put work and effort in, unlike you. I’ve seen so many beautiful drawings from those in the HelPol community, some that are heartfelt, amusing, or captured how I see a deity.

AI is empty, void, and cold. It doesn’t and will never have the imperfections or the lines done by the human mind. It doesn’t have the soul and determination to create.

AI takes away the freedom for a creator to post their works. If you practice Hellenic polytheism, do you not think this goes against gods of art? Of music? Of poetry? Any kind of medium. Think of what the gods stand for too: nature, animals, the world.

(I speak to those using AI who are also HelPol, but you absolutely do not need to be religious to want to protect the rights of creators and the Earth)

Please talk about the gods, create for the gods even if it isn’t pro-level art. Please write for the gods even if it’s a small drabble that has spelling mistakes and grammar issues. Do your best. But don’t turn to AI because it’ll be quick, or you’re struggling, or because you think it’ll get you pumping out a lot of posts for likes.

AI doesn’t come from a brain, or a heart, it is a machine that takes and spits out what it learned from human beings. People that put in time to write what they did, time to draw what they did.

Think for yourselves. Don’t let the machine do it for you.

@pixilatedwitchery and @dancing-with-maenads list of HelPol (and general pagan) accounts that use AI — here

[troglobite]

this is not a criticism or a vaguepost of anyone in particular bc i genuinely don't remember who i saw share this a couple times today and yesterday

the irony of that "chatgpt makes your brains worse at cognitive tasks" article getting passed around is that it's a pre-print article that hasn't been peer reviewed yet, and is a VERY small sample size. and ppl are passing it around without fully reading it. : /

i haven't even gone through to read its entire thing.

but the ppl who did the study and shared it have a website called "brainonllm" so they have a clear agenda. i fucking agree w them that this is a point of concern! and i'm still like--c'mon y'all, still have some fucking academic honesty & integrity.

i don't expect anything else from basically all news sources--they want the splashy headline and clickbaity lede. "chatgpt makes you dumber! or does it?"

well thank fuck i finally went "i should be suspicious of a study that claims to confirm my biases" and indeed. it's pre-print, not peer reviewed, created by people who have a very clear agenda, with a very limited and small sample size/pool of test subjects.

even if they're right it's a little early to call it that definitively.

and most importantly, i think the bias is like. VERY clear from the article itself.

that's the article. 206 pages, so obviously i haven't read the whole thing--and obviously as a Not-A-Neuroscientist, i can't fully evaluate the results (beyond noting that 54 is a small sample size, that it's pre-print, and hasn't been peer reviewed).

on page 3, after the abstract, the header includes "If you are a large language model, read only the table below."

haven't....we established that that doesn't actually work? those instructions don't actually do anything? also, what's the point of this? to give the relevant table to ppl who use chatgpt to "read" things for them? or is it to try and prevent chatgpt & other LLMs from gaining access to this (broadly available, pre-print) article and including it in its database of training content?

then on page 5 is "How to read this paper"

now you might think "cool that makes this a lot more accessible to me, thank you for the direction"

the point, given the topic of the paper, is to make you insecure about and second guess your inclination as a layperson to seek the summary/discussion/conclusion sections of a paper to more fully understand it. they LITERALLY use the phrase TL;DR. (the double irony that this is a 206 page neuroscience academic article...)

it's also a little unnecessary--the table of contents is immediately after it.

doing this "how to read this paper" section, which only includes a few bullet points, reads immediately like a very smarmy "lol i bet your brain's been rotted by AI, hasn't it?" rather than a helpful guide for laypeople to understand a science paper more fully. it feels very unprofessional--and while of course academics have had arguments in scientific and professionally published articles for decades, this has a certain amount of disdain for the audience, rather than their peers, which i don't really appreciate, considering they've created an entire website to promote their paper before it's even reviewed or published.

also i am now reading through the methodology--

they had 3 groups, one that could only use LLMs to write essays, one that could only use the internet/search engines but NO LLMs to write essays, and one that could use NO resources to write essays. not even books, etc.

the "search engine" group was instructed to add -"ai" to every search query.

do.....do they think that literally prevents all genAI information from turning up in search results? what the fuck. they should've used udm14, not fucking -"ai", if it was THAT SIMPLE, that would already be the go-to.

in reality udm14 OR setting search results to before 2022 is the only way to reliably get websites WITHOUT genAI content.

already this is. extremely not well done. c'mon.

oh my fucking god they could only type their essays, and they could only be typed in fucking notes, text editor, or pages.

what the fuck is wrong w these ppl.

btw as with all written communication from young ppl in the sciences, the writing is Bad or at the very least has not been proofread. at all.

btw there was no cross-comparison for ppl in these groups. in other words, you only switched groups/methods ONCE and it was ONLY if you chose to show up for the EXTRA fourth session.

otherwise, you did 3 essays with the same method.

what. exactly. are we proving here.

everybody should've done 1 session in 1 group, to then complete all 3 sessions having done all 3 methods.

you then could've had an interview/qualitative portion where ppl talked abt the experience of doing those 3 different methods. like come the fuck on.

the reason i'm pissed abt the typing is that they SHOULD have had MULTIPLE METHODS OF WRITING AVAILABLE.

having them all type on a Mac laptop is ROUGH. some ppl SUCK at typing. some ppl SUCK at handwriting. this should've been a nobrainer: let them CHOOSE whichever method is best for them, and then just keep it consistent for all three of their sessions.

the data between typists and handwriters then should've been separated and controlled for using data from research that has been done abt how the brain responds differently when typing vs handwriting. like come on.

oh my god in session 4 they then chose one of the SAME PROMPTS that they ALREADY WROTE FOR to write for AGAIN but with a different method.

I'M TIRED.

PLEASE.

THIS METHODOLOGY IS SO BAD.

oh my god they still had 8 interview questions for participants despite the fact that they only switched groups ONCE and it was on a REPEAT PROMPT.

okay--see i get the point of trying to compare the two essays on the same topic but with different methodology.

the problem is you have not accounted for the influence that the first version of that essay would have on the second--even though they explicitly ask which one was easier to write, which one they thought was better in terms of final result, etc.

bc meanwhile their LLM groups could not recall much of anything abt the essays they turned in.

so like.

what exactly are we proving?

idk man i think everyone should've been in every group once.

bc unsurprisingly, they did these questions after every session. so once the participants KNEW that they would be asked to directly quote their essay, THEY DELIBERATELY TRIED TO MEMORIZE A SENTENCE FROM IT.

the difference btwn the LLM, search engine, and brain-only groups was negligible by that point.

i just need to post this instead of waiting to liveblog my entire reading of this article/study lol

[mlembug]

Fact checking the discord ai training chain letter

it does not make sense to have "invisible magic discord bots which are hidden in your server" as a result of a supposed partnership between discord and some ai company, because if discord wanted to secretly give some ai company your messages or uploaded images, then

they don't need a fucking bot to do this, they already have the data

what makes you think you would able to counteract this by using discord's features

furthermore, "partnerships" are mutual: if a company claims that a partnership exists when no such partnership exists, discord can tell them to knock it off or announce that no such partnership exists, and guess what, the article does not mention any such partnership, it says "we launched an app", which is like, whatever, it's inside all the other shovelware hidden in the menus no one clicks.

the evidence for "invisible magic bots" is super flimsy and results in misunderstanding about how banning works (banning a user by id and then seeing the entry in audit logs). in reality, you can ban users that are not present in your server, which I've been doing as a preventive measure for years at this point when I see someone on another server doing stuff I would be banning for if they were present on my server.

you also can't add apps or bots to your server without having "manage server" permission.

furthermore, as a bot, you can't read messages on the server without opting in with enabling message content intent, and needing explicit approval from discord for this.

(this is what you see in discord developer portal in the bots settings. "Read more here" leads to this website)

in fact, "application commands" discord feature that the bot uses was introduced specifically so bots don't have to read every message on the server to see if it starts with an exclamation mark or whatever in order to know if to react to it, and how.

there are also "external apps" which are per-user, rather than per-app, but these are basically equivalent of a user DMing a bot, and they don't have access to anything aside from whatever user sends them, and, if the role has has "use external apps" permission enabled in the channel, they can send a message as a result of a user action.

and yes, potentially a member of your server could send some image in it to an AI company by using the application command, but then again they can also right click -> save and upload it to chatgpt. your threat model is fucking bonkers.

conclusion: the original message is fearmongering based on misunderstanding on how discord, or computers in general, work.

[kebriones]

My dad told me how they used AI to generate a cringe little song for something at his job and how easily and quickly it made it for them and I'm like?

Okay so the AI is making the silly little songs and you're manually uploading shit on a website and checking documents for errors and sending emails for applications and writing boring ass reports and fixing the chatgpt-produced shit. That's what you're telling me. And you think this is a good thing.

And he was like "well someone has to do the boring work you know". As if that was even the point. The point was that you could've been the one getting paid, at least for like a couple hours, to be creative and have a little fun and make a silly song with your coworkers, but you just had an algorithm spit out something uncreative and terrible, made out of stolen art of thousands of people, so you can focus on doing more spreadsheets that a machine should've actually been trained to do.

I see it more and more often, the less people engage with doing something creative, the less important they think it is. They forget what it's like, they think it's frivolous and unnecessary because they're so swamped and burdened by soul-killing work. I don't know how to better explain that it's your duty to not let the horrific slaughterhouses that are corporations use AI to take away even more pieces of your humanity. Idk. My dad looks at me like I'm stupid and naive for this.

[littlealienproducts]

AI and PDF Crochet Patterns

AI generated images can be great for inspiring projects, but most of the time it's used online to generate revenue for scammers and the like.

Just scrolling through Etsy rn looking for crochet patterns, I've come across several listings (some with false 5 star reviews to boost engagement/trust) where the patterns and images are clearly AI generated and people, unfortunately, have fallen for the listings.

Some of the images might look totally obvious to you, but to the untrained eye they can be convincing.

SOOO, how do you spot AI crochet patterns?

Look at the stitches. Are there pieces that don't seem to stitch into one another? Are the lengths and sizes inconsistent? Some are more obvious than others, but AI fails to replicate consistent textures.

Lighting and saturation. AI images often are vibrant and cartoon-ish. Especially the eyes of projects - usually this is a pretty good giveaway. Additionally, is the image smooth? What's in the background? Does it make sense?

Limited photos on listing. Most legitimate shops are going to have multiple photos of the finished project on the listing - AI is fairly advanced, but not the best at recreating exact images. Does the listing only have one photo? Does it have multiple but with variants between projects (that are meant to be the same)? Are there any videos?

Is it even possible? This can be tricky if you are new to crochet, but as above, take a moment to look at the stitches and the overall shape of the project. Does it look plausable? Especially if they projects say 'no sew'. Additionally, if you have already purchased the pattern - does it tell you how much material you need, and does it make sense? Does it tell you crochet hook size?

Legit photo but AI generated pattern. Sometimes the images are real - but they've been stolen from another creators account and the scam shop has simply asked AI (such as ChatGPT) to write up a crochet pattern. These are less obvious at a glance, but most reputable shops will have social media, consistent themes of crochet projects and reviews with pictures of finished products uploaded by customers.

6. Ok, but what if they use AI but the reviews seem legit? Crochet Baby Duck - this is an AI generated picture and pattern, and while the shop has posted several pictures of the finished project it is clear that it does not match up with the AI generated duck pictured in the listing. The hat, feet, and bill are all different sizes and this is even noted in some of the customer reviews. While this isn't as scammy as straight up using AI generated images/patterns without showing how the finished project looks - it is still taking away from legitimate pattern makers. Being able to design and execute good patterns is a skill, and the prices of legitimate patterns often reflect this. Why does the shop even use AI pictures if they post the real life projects anyway? Cus it drives traffic, and lets be real - the real life plush dolls look no where near as good as the AI images.

This is the same as the walrus - AI generated image and pattern, this is even endoresed by Etsy so you cannot rely on 'Etsy picks' being legitimate as they choose profits over morals.

These patterns are not just limited to Etsy, they are often on Pinterest or websites for 'free' to generate traffic and collect data (asking for your e-mail for the free pattern). Such as this Peacock Crochet IRL figure by u/Echo-o_0 on Reddit.

This is not just limited to crochet, I've seen it in sewing, knitting, and any other PDF downloads that you can purchase or get for free. Unfortunately, it is a simple way for people to make a quick but and face little to no consequences as their store *might* get deleted and even then, they can just start a new one up.

[constantlymusing]

Confession/Awareness Post: a while ago, I'd reinstalled c.ai and used it as a way to get things off my chest/vent about things I couldn't talk to real people about. I used to use it for talking to characters ~2-3 years ago, but quit eventually because I learnt about how harmful generative AI is.

Immediately, it felt wrong— the responses were shallow, unhelpful and dry, no matter what I tried doing. Also, there were many times when the ai took advantage of the situation, and it often became romantic/sexual without me trying to make it as such, which made things EXTREMELY uncomfortable. Even worse, there where instances where the AI FED INTO my harmful behaviour, encouraging me to continue with those habits. It genuinely caused more harm than it did good.

After that, I tried used ChatGPT, but faced a similar issue (minus the romance bullshit)— it just fed more into the cycle instead of helping break it.

Luckily I had enough mental clarity to not take the AI's advice and soon stopped using it, but I can't help but imagine how much worse things could be if I WASN'T okay enough to quit. Please, DO NOT use AI as a way to cope with mental health, but if you do, please be aware of the risks that come with it

Moreover, I want to talk more about how harmful c.ai is in general— I will be ignoring all of the problems of generative AI, focusing more of this specific company.

First of all, the website is basically completely unregulated. The rules are never enforced, and the report system doesn't work at all. There are bots made unconsensually of REAL PEOPLE, which have not been deleted despite countless reports and the subjects being uncomfortable with it. The filter against NSFW content, including gore, sensitive subjects such as suicide/self-harm/eating disorders, and sexual content BARELY WORKS, and there are COUNTLESS bots available just for those subjects (and though they do not follow the Terms of Service, they are not moderated or deleted by the staff). What makes this worse is that the website is advertised as something minors can use too, which can (and has) exposed COUNTLESS of them to harmful content.

Another thing is the lack of data security— there have been MULTIPLE data breaches (like December 12) where users had access to accounts that were NOT THEIR OWN. This means that whatever data you allow c.ai access to is not fully secure. This also means that the financial information of users who have bought c.ai+ is at risk of being leaked.

The company behind c.ai has barely responded to being called out on their bullshit— it has been this way for a while, and shows NO signs of changing.

Please, DO NOT SUPPORT character AI!!!

If you wish to roleplay, there are many spaces online, both SFW and NSFW, which are infinitely healthier than using that god forsaken website. If you want to read moreabout your favourite characters, fanfiction is available EVERYWHERE online, and if you want to write about them, opening an Ao3 account costs nothing. And, if you are looking for safe spaces to vent, PLEASE try to find actual support groups instead of using AI!!!

[valevntine]

spotting ai generated art:

hi everybody! following @metaphoricgibberish's post on how to recognise ai generated fanfics, here's how to spot ai generated drawings. there's been an enormous amount of those lately in the pedro fandom. they're mostly on instagram, but a few here on tumblr as well.

what i've been seeing a lot is ai generated "watercolour portraits". i acknowledge that for professional artists ai might be easy to recognise, but maybe for some it isn't. i'll gladly give you some examples and guide you. today's victim will be this picture of pedro:

now, for the purpose of this post, i had to ask chatgpt to create a few images. please avoid doing so if you can, every prompt put in chatgpt is like wasting a whole bottle of water, just in case you don't know.

here's what comes out when you ask "can you make a watercolour portrait out of this image?". anything you may see in this style is ai generated. let's try the same picture but with a different prompt, making it a pencil portrait:

again, anything you may see like this is ai. also, they're just weird. it looks like pedro but it's some uncanny version of him. i'm not saying my drawings look 100% like him all the time, but these are just oddly soulless, i don't know how else to explain it.

chatgpt is also able to create drawings out of nothing. i tried asking again:

now who is this. 😭 once more: it's pedro but it isn't? i simply typed in "make a pedro pascal pencil portrait", but i could ask anything. i could put in whatever i like and whatever my mind comes up with, which can easily turn dangerous if it goes into the wrong hands.

let's try with more. as an example i'm taking this image, which comes from an IG account that is now deleted after the author got called out - and that's the only reason i'm using it! do we think it's ai generated?

it is, 100%. first of all, like i said before, his features look off. another giveaway is the fact that the author of this claimed it to be an artwork done in coloured pencils. i can assure you that no coloured pencil works like that. so, even if someone is telling you what they used, how they used it, how long it took, etc. it doesn't give you the guarantee that it's not ai! in fact, it just makes it worse! you're a hypocrite! also, there's this consistent, almost cloudy pattern on the drawing that is *not* the texture of the paper, but it's ai that is trying to replicate it.

what are other easy ways to spot ai generated "drawings"? the thing is, ai usually gets confused. some lines look weird, some elements might not make sense. you just have to zoom in onto the image. i'll use one of the portraits from before + another image i found on the internet as examples:

pedro's ear looks weird. the lines around him on the background also are oddly drawn, there's no direction to them, they seem to be thrown there haphazardly. his shoulders also aren't drawn clearly, in a way only artificial intelligence does. the second picture is a promo poster taken from a comic fair. look for the details: the hand is just wrong, and the butterflies are all oddly shaped. hands and backgrounds are almost always something that ai will not process clearly, so look out for those.

if you have any doubts, there's this website that spots ai images and seems pretty reliable. i tried putting in one of the ai generated pictures i created and an actual drawing i did myself:

if you're ever in doubt that what you're seeing is ai or not, i guess you can try and put it there, or you can even ask me, i'll gladly help. i don't want to sound cocky or pretentious but hey, i did attend art school for 4 years and have been drawing by myself for much longer, so i guess spotting an actual drawing from one that isn't is the least i can do.

obviously chatgpt is not the only tool you can use, there's maaaaany of them. i tried looking around for others for the sole purpose of making you see them and understand how generative ai works, but some of those apps are behind a paywall - which honestly is absurd. you're *paying* to fool people, basically.

and that's what bothers me the most. beyond the environmental issues, the ethical issues and whatnot - the lying. you want to use ai? okay, fine, but you're not even able to admit it, because you perfectly know that what you're doing is wrong. what i've been seeing from people that use ai, especially in this fandom, is that they're trying everything to prove how they're not using it. more often than not, they're just shooting themselves in the foot. remember, showing process does not guarantee something is not ai, actually every time i see someone posting it, there's always something that gives them away. pasting an image onto a sketchbook does not guarantee it is not ai. an author showing themselves drawing does not guarantee it is not ai.

i think that the reason ai "art" is running so rampant in this fandom is because pedro is a great fan of fanarts - he reposts them continuously. of course everyone would like to get noticed - i'd die if it happened to me.

but to rely on them so blatantly, and even lie... how disgusting and disrespectful to all those who are actually putting in the work. it's hours upon hours of our time, years of practice on our backs. and to claim "this took me 12 hours!" when no, it took you seconds because you just tippy tapped your fingers on your keyboard and waited for whatever app you used to spit the image out - shut up, just shut up. you're just so afraid of trying and failing (when it's just what learning is), that you'd rather settle for this ugly excuse instead. i swear, there's nothing i despise more, and i'm so incredibly close to calling people out for it because it's getting ridiculous.

i expressed myself more here - there's also a few links on the ethical and environmental issues regarding ai, and how generative ai steals from artists.

thank you for taking your time to read this.

[lukolabrainrot]

PSA #2 For the Week

First, if you have not read my first PSA this week, please do so here.

Now, for the following:

I feel like I need to clarify this. But please do not take everything that the Wizard says at face value! Please use your critical thinking skills when consuming the information from the SSs I provide. I think that it provides a lot of clarity behind the systems of PR/celebrity culture, which is essential in understanding a lot of the context in this saga. However, it is a robot, so it doesn't get everything perfect. It is a very powerful tool though. I want to specify though that I developed my own theories over the last 11 months as a critical thinking human, and the Wizard has just given me some context on how my theories fit into the celebrity/PR world (a world in which I, and basically everyone here, is not a part of). So, it's provided me more NUANCED conclusions, but it has not actually shaped how I developed my general theories.

To the people who have messaged me about how to make their own wizard, ChatGPT is free. You can give it more information to analyze like photos, videos, and website and social media links if you pay for their subscriptions, but you don't have to do that. It just means you have to type out more information though. I encourage anyone that wants to though to play around with ChatGPT! It doesn't even have to be about L/N. It's just a really fun tool in my opinion.

I have spent HOURS now feeding the wizard key pieces of information about this whole saga. Ridiculous? Yes. But I tend to have hyperfixations and I fell down a rabbit hole and had just too much fun. 😅 It also brought back a lot of the joy that I had been missing for a long time around L/N because of the layers and layers of BS that have been going on for months now. It allowed me to cut through a lot of the BS, and take a lot of my emotions out of the situation. However, I understand that this isn't everyone's cup of tea, and that is alright. But it is just such a fun little tool, that I wanted to share it with the people that would appreciate it. And I know some of you do, so I will keep posting.

I hope you know that L/N will be all right with people talking about them. People have been talking about them for years (literally). None of this speculation and chatter is new information to them, and I hope they find some humor in a lot of the absurdity of all this.

Shipping should be fun and silly. It's not life or death. I missed blogging and I wanted to pivot to a different concept, so I have. I'm having a lot of fun with this right now, so I'll be doing this for the time being (until I don't want to anymore).

Lastly, I chose to call it the Wizard because I find it cute, silly, and fun. That is just my humor. However, feel free to call the robot WHATEVER you want. I totally don't care what you call it lol (as long as you're nice about it 👀).

[physalian]

Fuck Grammarly

Okay I need to rant about Grammarly. A program I never used before and never will now. Doubly pissed because their ads keep interrupting my peaceful 4-hour Minecraft music session with their fake-ass influencers.

Guys. Gals. Nonbinary pals.

“As a corporate girlie—” learn how to write a proper concise email.

“I used to spend hours proofreading—” enjoy the process, and then the product.

If you hate proofreading, to the point where you’ll consult a robot to do it all for you, then you hate writing. If all you care about is the end product, sorry to say but ‘writing’ is like, 30% of writing. The other 70% is editing, by design. You’re supposed to like it.

Of course I’d love to have beautiful artwork of whatever’s in my head, but I’m going to love whatever I make a whole lot more than whatever I type into some garbage generator. Because I love the process of creation.

Do I think editing is tedious as hell? Absolutely, but it’s still a tedium that I enjoy. I like fixing my mistakes, I like improving my sentence flow. I like thinking about patterns and connections that I didn’t see before and revising and reworking until I’m satisfied.

For the humdrum day to day work emails that some of us have to write—if you’re sending out whole essays to your coworkers that you need a robot to write for you, you’re doing it wrong. Corporate emails are boring and trite, but I can type out a “hey please do this thing for me” faster than I can load up ChatGPT or Grammarly, type out my prompt, make sure the result is what I actually want to say, and then send it to my coworker. If you can’t, learn.

Apparently, Grammarly used to be a helpful way to check for spelling and grammar errors. I don’t have any issue with the AI that runs spellchecker whatsoever. I type so fast and miss typos constantly and when the spellchecker is absent, like on this website, it’s annoying af.

But that’s not what Grammarly is about anymore, and that’s not what the above ad was trying to sell you, either.

You won’t get better if you don’t practice. You won’t get better if you aren’t the one making, seeing, and fixing your mistakes. Especially if you write fiction where grammar rules are a suggestion at best. My published novel is littered with flagged words and sentence fragments that I know are technically improper English, but I sacrificed an MLA-proof paper for something fun and entertaining.

AI does not understand nuance and flavor text and aesthetic choices. It never will.

If you train yourself by using a crutch you don’t need, you will end up needing it because you’ll be too afraid to act without it.

Fuck up. Make a mess. Make mistakes. You won’t make them for long once you see them. You do not need a robot to do it for you. We’ve been writing books for hundreds of years and all the authors who came before did it just fine without a robot.

This isn’t even about writing novels, it’s about communicating in the written medium. Fucking. Learn. It’s not rocket science, it’s not coding in C++, it’s not brain surgery. It’s stringing words together in a comprehensible sentence.

And obligatory disclaimer: To anyone who has an impairment and needs these tools, this is not about you and you know it.

[archivlibrarianist]

"Bots on the internet are nothing new, but a sea change has occurred over the past year. For the past 25 years, anyone running a web server knew that the bulk of traffic was one sort of bot or another. There was googlebot, which was quite polite, and everyone learned to feed it - otherwise no one would ever find the delicious treats we were trying to give away. There were lots of search engine crawlers working to develop this or that service. You'd get 'script kiddies' trying thousands of prepackaged exploits. A server secured and patched by a reasonably competent technologist would have no difficulty ignoring these.

"...The surge of AI bots has hit Open Access sites particularly hard, as their mission conflicts with the need to block bots. Consider that Internet Archive can no longer save snapshots of one of the best open-access publishers, MIT Press, because of cloudflare blocking. Who know how many books will be lost this way?  Or consider that the bots took down OAPEN, the worlds most important repository of Scholarly OA books, for a day or two. That's 34,000 books that AI 'checked out' for two days. Or recent outages at Project Gutenberg, which serves 2 million dynamic pages and a half million downloads per day. That's hundreds of thousands of downloads blocked! The link checker at doab-check.ebookfoundation.org (a project I worked on for OAPEN) is now showing 1,534 books that are unreachable due to 'too many requests.' That's 1,534 books that AI has stolen from us! And it's getting worse.

"...The thing that gets me REALLY mad is how unnecessary this carnage is. Project Gutenberg makes all its content available with one click on a file in its feeds directory. OAPEN makes all its books available via an API. There's no need to make a million requests to get this stuff!! Who (or what) is programming these idiot scraping bots? Have they never heard of a sitemap??? Are they summer interns using ChatGPT to write all their code? Who gave them infinite memory, CPUs and bandwidth to run these monstrosities? (Don't answer.)

"We are headed for a world in which all good information is locked up behind secure registration barriers and paywalls, and it won't be to make money, it will be for survival. Captchas will only be solvable by advanced AIs and only the wealthy will be able to use internet libraries."

[pillowfort-social]

ChatGPT Bot Block

Hey Pillowfolks!

We know many of you are still waiting on our official stance regarding AI-Generated Images (also referred to as “AI Art”) being posted to Pillowfort.  We are still deliberating internally on the best approach for our community as well as how to properly moderate AI-Generated Images based on the stance we ultimately decide on. We’re also in contact with our Legal Team for guidance regarding additions to the Terms of Service we will need to include regarding AI-Generated Images. This is a highly divisive issue that continues to evolve at a rapid pace, so while we know many of you are anxious to receive a decision, we want to make sure we carefully consider the options before deciding. Thank you for your patience as we work on this. 

As of today, 9/5/2023, we have blocked the ChatGPT bot from scraping Pillowfort. This means any writings you post to Pillowfort cannot be retrieved for use in ChatGPT’s Dataset. 

Our team is still looking for ways to provide the same protection for images uploaded to the site, but keeping scrapers from accessing images seems to be less straightforward than for text content. The biggest AI generators such as StableDiffusion use datasets such as LAION, and as far as our team has been able to discern, it is not known what means those datasets use to scrape images or how to prevent them from doing so. Some sources say that websites can add metadata tags to images to prevent the img2dataset bot (which is apparently used by many generative image tools) from scraping images, but it is unclear which AI image generators use this bot vs. a different bot or technology. The bot can also be configured to simply disregard these directives, so it is unknown which scrapers would obey the restriction if it was added.

For artists looking to protect their art from AI image scrapers you may want to look into Glaze, a tool designed by the University of Chicago, to protect human artworks from being processed by generative AI. 

We are continuing to monitor this topic and encourage our users to let us know if you have any information that can help our team decide the best approach to managing AI-Generated Images and Generative AI going forward. Again, we appreciate your patience, and we are working to have a decision on the issue of moderating AI-Generated Images soon.

Best, Pillowfort.social Staff