#ai content paraphraser

[johncarter54]

Free paraphrasing tool for students. Do your homework and write essays much faster with NetusAI.

[simplifyaitools]

Writesonic AI: The Ultimate Content Creation Tool learn By Simplify AI Tools Boost your content with Writesonic AI, a powerful Content Creation and Paraphrasing Tool. Enhance readability, optimize for SEO, and create human-like AI text effortlessly. Contact Simplify AI Tool to learn the tool with their latest hands-on and tutorials.

[desklib72]

Avoid Plagiarism Like a Pro with Automated Paraphrasing Tools

It is difficult to out plagiarism. For essay writing, report writing, or online content creation, the ability to be original without compromising on your ideas is a pretty delicate matter. Thankfully, automatic paraphrasing has transformed the way one writes and helped people create plagiarism-free content without compromising on clarity or meaning.

Here, we will take a look at how one can effectively avoid plagiarism and dive deep into how tools such as AI Content Rewriters, AI-powered paraphrasing, and text rewriting tools can make your writing process smoother and more creative.

What is Plagiarism and Why Should We Avoid It?

Plagiarism is the actual copying of somebody's work with representation that it is somebody else's work. Plagiarism is a huge concern in the educational world, professional practices, and even businesses. This is because not only can it make one lose reputation, but the penalties associated with such vices may range from losing grades to losing a job opportunity and even reaching legal complication.

It's about respect to intellectual property, it's about fostering originality-not just a set of rules to follow. Fortunately, you can take advantage of automated paraphrasing** tools that will rephrase your content with ease while maintaining its very core.

Why use automated paraphrasing?

Automated paraphrasing tools refer to the opportunity for students, professionals, and writers to save time and work more effectively. Here's why they are indispensable:

Saves Time: Manual paraphrasing is exhaustive, but with automated tools, it's a matter of seconds!

Ensures Accuracy: These tools use the whole context for coherent, precise results.

Amplifies Creativity: They offer alternative expressions that will trigger new ideas and improve your writing.

While on this, for instance,  Desklib's Automated Paraphraser basically does more other than word substituting. The facility assesses the whole text, restating it with a flow and coherence that is spotless of any sort of plagiarism.

How Automated Content Rewriter Tools Help Avoid Plagiarism

Here is how tools like Text Rewriting AI keep your work free of plagiarism:

1. Rewriting Entire Passages

Unlike basic tools that just replace words with synonyms, this automated content rewriter can rework whole paragraphs and retain meaning but present it differently.

2. Tone and Style Customization

Whether you want your essay to have a formal tone or a blog conversational in style, these tools seamlessly adapt the content to your needs.

3. Encouraging Learning and Growth

The automated tools won't just give you answers but teach you how to rephrase some ideas, so that with time, you would become more confident and original in your writing.

What Makes Automated Paraphrasing Tools Stand Out?

Why are these tools in high demand? Because they excel in much more than word swapping:

Contextual Awareness: Automatic tools go deep into the text and ensure that the original meaning has been kept intact.

Vocabulary Building: They replace repetitive words with dynamic alternatives, adding weight to your content.

Tone Preservation: Be it academic, professional, or casual, these tools make sure your style is preserved.

Tips to Avoid Plagiarism Without Losing Quality

As helpful as the tools are, combining them with personal strategies can really raise the game:

1. Understand the Topic Thoroughly: Before rephrasing, ensure you grasp the source material. Expressing original thoughts is easier when you truly understand the content.

2. Seek from Multiple Sources: This will ensure a wide outlook and reduce dependency on one source.

3. Adding Personal Opinions: Add your views to make the content unique and interesting.

4. Cite Sources Properly: Use quotation marks and proper referencing for direct quotes and specific data taken from sources. 

5. Proofread and Edit: After using an automated tool, go through the content to make sure it reflects your voice and style. 

Why Choose Desklib's Automated Paraphraser? 

The Desklib Automated Paraphraser is not just an addition but a solution tailored to the needs of scholars, professionals, and many people who need exactness, coherency, and speed in written works. This tool considers the entire context to ensure your work is unique, well-phrased, and reads fluently. Even for those who have never used paraphrasing tools before, Desklib has a user-friendly interface that's really easy to use. 

Wrapping It Up 

Avoiding plagiarism is not a battle. You can achieve this through personal effort, mixed with other tools like Desklib's Automated Paraphraser. These tools save you not only time but also add weight to your write-ups. The next time you struggle to paraphrase content, let automated paraphrasing do the heavy lifting. With Desklib on your side, originality and creativity are just a click away!

[durgeapologist]

Let's Talk About Ir Abelas, Da'ean

As some of you may know, I am vehemently against the dishonest use of AI in fandom and creative spaces. It has been brought to my attention by many, many people (and something I myself have thought on many times) that there is a DreadRook fic that is super popular and confirmed to be written at least partially with AI. I have the texts to prove it was written (at least) with the help of the Grammarly Rewrite generative feature.

Before I go any further, let it be known I was friends with this author; their use of rewrite features is something they told me and have told many other people who they have shared their fic with. It is not however, at the time of posting this, tagged or mentioned on their fic on AO3, in any capacity. I did in fact reach out to the author before making this post. They made absolutely no attempt to agree to state the use of Rewrite AI on their fic, nor be honest or upfront (in my opinion) about the possibility of their fic being complete generative AI. They denied the use of generative AI as a whole, though they did confirm (once again) use of the rewrite feature on Grammarly.

That all said: I do not feel comfortable letting this lie; since I have been asked by many people to make this, this post is simply for awareness.

You can form your own opinion, if you wish to. In fact, I encourage you to do such.

Aside from the, once again, high volume word output of around 352K words in less than 3 months (author says they had 10 chapters pre-written over "about a month" before they began posting; they are also on record saying they can write 5K-10K daily) from November until now, I have also said if you are familiar with AI services or peruse AI sites like ChatGPT, C.AI, J.AI, or any others similar to these, AI writing is very easy to pick out.

After some intense digging, research, and what I believe to be full confirmation via AI detection software used by professional publishers, there is a large and staggering possibility that the fic is almost entirely AI generated, bar some excerpts and paragraphs, here and there. I will post links below of the highly-resourced detection software that a few paragraphs and an entire chapter from this fic were plugged into; you are more than welcome to do with this information what you please.

I implore you to use critical thinking skills, and understand that when this many pieces in a work come back with such a high percentage of AI detected, that there is something going on. (There was a plethora of other AI detection softwares used that also corroborate these findings; I only find it useful to attach the most reputable source.)

Excerpts:

82% Likely Written by AI, 4% Plagiarism Match

98% Likely Written by AI, 2% Plagiarism Match

100% Likely Written by AI, 4% Plagiarism Match

Some excerpts do in fact come back as 100% likely written by human; however, this does not mean that the author was not using the Grammarly Paraphrase/Rewrite feature for these excerpts.

The Grammarly Paraphrase/Rewrite feature does not typically clock as AI generative text, and alongside the example below, many excerpts from other fics were take and put through this feature, and then fed back into the AI detection software. Every single one came back looking like this, within 2% of results:

So, in my opinion, and many others, this goes beyond the use of the simple paraphrase/rewrite feature on Grammarly.

Entire Chapter (Most Recent):

67% Likely Written by AI

As well, just for some variety, another detection software that also clocked plagiarism in the text:

15% Plagiarism Match

To make it clear that I am not simply 'jealous' of this author or 'angry' at their work for simply being a popular work in the fandom, here are some excerpts from other fanfics in this fandom and in other fandoms that were ran through the same exact same detection software, all coming back as 100% human written. (If you would like to run my fic through this software or any others, you are more than welcome to. I do not want to run the risk of OP post manipulation, so I did not include my own.)

The Wolf's Mantle

100% Likely Human Written, 2% Plagiarism Match

A Memory Called Desire

99% Likely Human Written

Brand Loyalty

100% Likely Human Written

Heart of The Sun

98% Likely Human Written

Whether you choose to use AI in your own fandom works is entirely at your own discretion. However, it is important to be transparent about such usage.

AI has many negative impacts for creatives across many mediums, including writers, artists, and voice actors.

If you use AI, it should be tagged as such, so that people who do not want to engage in AI works can avoid engaging with it if they wish to.

ALL LINKS AND PICTURES COURTESY OF: @spiritroses

[myobsessionsspace]

Hello! Now that we've seen all eight episodes and Jimin and JK didn't take a single opportunity to "bro" up their relationship, no "when we get married to women I hope we're still friends" conversation, do you think AYS was a soft launch? Or did it just feel like one because that's the natural by-product of seeing Jimin and JK together without (much) third party interference?

Hi lovely,

Thank you for sending this in.

I haven’t done any write ups on my feelings after each episode like many have. There’s been much said that I agree with, so Ididn’t really have anything new to add.

Tbh I’ve done a Masterlist for all things AYS also including the write ups of 2 bloggers here that I pretty much agreed and enjoyed their write ups. Both @akookminsupporter and @jmdbjk (thank you two again for agreeing to have your posts linked🥹)

Do I think the show was a soft launch? Sort answer no. Long answer mmmm no?lol😅🙈

⚠️Looooonnnnnnngggg essay of an answer incoming⚠️

I think with this show and all that it has around it has to be looked at through the eyes of Koreans and the type of shows they have in Korea. How the ‘bromance’ genre is generally accepted and the types of shows celebs and idols do in Korea.

Did you know many idol groups do RUN BTS! like shows, In The Soop and Bon Voyage like shows, shows where they become parents for a period of time to kids, shows where they get ‘married’ etc. Koreans see celebs and everything they do as entertainment for them. Two idols from a group of 7 travelling ‘alone’ sure, bromance, sure something BTS hasn’t done before but…

Tbh it’s not that unique. It’s not that outlandish.

I posted this previously

Close friends and famous actors going on a trip to Jeju, meeting with other friends and fishing together.

Tbh people may not view the show the same way that jikookers are. Jikookers have the added knowledge of everything in Jikook spaces that have previously been highlighted. So we see the inside jokes and know that this just adds to the long saga of Jikook and inside jokes, we see the hyung/dongsaeng dynamic get flipped on its head and we add it to the years long knowledge we have of Jikook and their unique bond.

I think there was some ‘bro’ energy. To be honest above anything else they’re goofballs and dudes. For as much tenderness as there was, there were ‘bro’ moments too, they are BFFs and young men after all. I think the show served different things for different viewers.

For casual viewers, those who know of BTS and we’re just interested in watching BTS content. Cos let’s be real, this isn’t a show you just are channel surfing and happen across. You have to search for this show, know of its existence, be recommended it or have been waiting to watch it. For those casual viewers, maybe or maybe not identifying as army, the show was just a fun, more adult, more slow paced BTS show. With two members that after watching the show, the viewer now realises are close close friends with more of a chingu friendship and would be shocked that it’s actual a hyung and dongsaeng (if they didn’t already know).

For these reactors, they kept verbalising ‘how close’ Jikook must be ‘good friends’ ‘close friends’ and ‘cute’. (click here if you want to check out the full thread on twit/x)

For army watching it, again it’s just to them, an opportunity to watch more BTS content. To enjoy the members travelling, eating and having fun, more of the in the Soop/Bon voyage that they’re familiar with. More of the skinship, playful, one big happy family that army know BTS to be.

A paraphrased collection of what was seen from army on twit/x

Jikookers having the time of our lives with all the tender and also sus af moments.

For Jikook shippers, the show is just a reaffirmation of what they already felt they knew about Jikook. More of an opportunity to see Jikook’s dynamic that they saw in bits and pieces from lives, fan cams, Bangtan bombs, memories and other BTS shows.

The show tbh isn’t really earth shattering in unveiling anything about Jikook to any of the demographics mentioned above casual fans, army or jikookers.

Depending on what sub group a viewer fits into, their perception of the show fits that.

I don’t think anyone really honestly, apart from exuberant jikookers truly think this show is Jikook’s soft launch.

I think by Korean standards the show isn’t outlandishly gay.

It’s got sus moments here and there like the majority of Bangtan content has had over the years. But on the whole, it is content that other groups have done in one way or another, other celebrities have done, were yes they do tease and flirt and joke about the ‘homoerotic’ atmosphere some setting bring, but due to the dominating culture of homophobia, none really honestly mean it or believe it to be gay or involving actual gay people. I don’t know if that makes sense what I’m trying to say?

I’ve written thoughts before on the show, how it made sense for it to happen for Jikook, how it’s not so out there for them to be filming a duo trip etc.

Musings

Thoughts

Pondering

👤“Everything comes back to GCF with you Jikooker🙄”

Me: Yes, Yes it does 💅

If you’ve got this far in the answer trust me, bare with me I’m going somewhere with this, it’s not just another opportunity to gush about GCFs😅🙈

Remember that Jimin loves travelling with Jungkook, he loved being GCF’s main model (no matter how embarrassed JK was at Jimin verbalising it to be the case and his denials😂)

Jimin made his little vlog of their Tokyo trip before he knew the kind of production Jungkook was making himself with his first ever GCF. They’ve always like travelling together and always like sharing it with army. They just didn’t have much opportunity.

Jungkook tweeting this whilst editing GCF Saipan.

Namjoon tweeting this whilst they were in Saipan.

What is AYS then?!!

I think AYS was just a matured continuation of Jikook jikooking. Their numerous selcas they’d share on twitter, their joint YouTube logs they’d do in the beginning, their back and forths they’d have on weverse every now and again.

This show was to me, I think, is just Jikook reaffirming everything they’ve always shown about themselves to army, that’s they’re intertwined, how many times have they said they are ‘you are me and I am you’.

They couldn’t do a subunit together, they had no time to do a cover song together, something I’m sure they would have loved to do in chapter two.

I just feel like they wanted to do something together in chapter two, because since the beginning of their careers, they’ve always made sure they carved out something within that highlighted the two of them. That was for the two of them.

Everyone had their own documentaries, appearances on shows or their own YouTube shows etc. Jikook too had their own docs, but they were the only to have their own show for the two of them.

I don’t think the show was a soft launch. I do think the show was another part in the long history of Jikook showing us, rather than telling us, they’re never to be divided. That the other is their source of joy, happiness and home and wherever they start, they’ll always end it with the other. Like we noticed FACE ended with Letter feat. Jungkook, Jimin’s doc ended with Jungkook, Jungkook’s doc ended with Jimin, they ended their free time travelling with each other before enlistment together and they ended their solo releases with Are You Sure?! capping it all off. Their show playing their solo songs whilst showing the two meeting together after it all.

That’s what I got from the show.

If the show was a soft launch, then enlisting together, their portions in their autobiography, their section in their monument’s documentary, GCF Tokyo…all those were soft launches too

Ultimately I think Jikook are intent on making one thing clear. Not the romantic state of their relationship. But the importantance of it full stop.

That they are important to each other AND the closest to each other. Anything else they aren’t (to me) addressing. But they are with this show and with every stage in their career, making sure it’s known that Jimin is of the utmost importance to Jungkook and Jungkook is of the utmost importance to Jimin.

Since the beginning

Thank you for this ask lovely. I don’t know if it was the answer you wanted but it’s what makes sense to me.

Thank you for anyone else that made it through this huge answer in its entirety 😩

It’d be great if anyone else wanted to give their view on this so we’re can share and discuss

💜

[venussaidso]

AI detectors are bullshit because my friend wrote her own work, got flagged for using AI, panicked and paraphrased her own words AGAIN, still got flagged for AI!!

Mind you, she's a decent writer. So she has to dumb herself down and shorten sentences to bypass the AI detectors, for her own writing, which is fucking insane.

I told her to just submit it.

I do the same lmao, idgaf about AI detectors because I know these words are my own.

But it's crazy that human content is getting flagged as AI?? Being a fairly decent writer means you used AI?

Actually insane.

So you have to sound like a fucking prick in your essays to bypass your work getting flagged as 60% AI. Literally getttttttt fuckedddd.

[writersbloxx]

Hi!!! So i need a little help please, english isn't my first language and I'm experimenting with english writing for the first time, I'm struggling with grammar and ppl have suggested me to use grammarly, would that be ethical? Is there an alternative that is ethical?

Hi Anon!

For more basic grammar checks, the use of grammarly is generally acceptable. If this is a question of academic integrity, it really does depend on the assignment/professor because grammarly is still AI powered with content generation. If it's for your personal projects, grammarly claims to adapt to your writing style, but over-reliance on this tool could lead to plagiarism.

Some more traditional tools that don't rely as heavily on generative AI are the built-in grammar checks in Microsoft Word or Google Docs. It also never hurts to have your work proofread by a native English speaker.

All online grammar checks use AI. However, it's easy to navigate responsible use of it. Just avoid making them your primary tool and relying too much on their paraphrasing options. Also be sure to treat their corrections as suggestions, reviewing them carefully to be sure they fit into the context of your writing.

Happy writing!

[caffeinatedowlbear]

On Handsome AIs and identities

This was going to be a comment in the discussion under this post, but I cannot be stopped.

After clearing up semantics, OP and I are in agreement that AI Jack was created by means of a ‘brain download’, however BL’s near-magical technology would handle that.

What comes next is determining to which degree AI Jack is or isn’t the same person as Jack 1.0. I’m afraid you’ve triggered an unskippable cutscene.

To clear this up, I propose we answer the following questions:

1. Is AI Jack a SEPARATE being from Jack 1.0?

2. Is AI Jack a DIFFERENT being than Jack 1.0?

Is he separate?

As far as I’m concerned, yes, because:

He is a new being: AI Jack is a digital entity that had not existed before being created by Nakayama: and we know that Nakayama did make the initial primitive AI we meet in TPS; we can imagine the AI Jack in Tales being a much, much, much upgraded version of that.

He is operatIONAL, even if not operatING: based on how easily AI Jack is activated in Tales, we can assume that the 'brain download' wasn’t being passively dumped into a static database, but incorporated into a digital, self-aware system capable of autonomous thought and action, once activated.

“But he wasn’t activated until—”

Irrelevant! As far as I'm concerned, a being in stasis is still a being. It exists, and it’s alive, just not presently active. If I wouldn’t be okay with destroying an active self-aware AI, I also wouldn’t be okay with destroying a fully functional AI that hasn't been activated yet. Killing the latter would NOT feel more okay than the former.

Is he different?

OP has pointed out that from the point where Jack 1.0’s and AI Jack’s experiences start to differ, they become separate beings. Based on my points above, I argue that AI Jack is a separate being from jump. But paraphrasing OP, I would say that 1.0 and AI become different beings the moment their experiences diverge.

And that moment is the very next second after 1.0’s brain download begins. Because the brain being downloaded is a snapshot in time, so as soon as 1.0 makes a new memory, including the memory of uploading said snapshot… continuity has been broken. 1.0 now has a memory that AI doesn’t.

Which kind of means that the only time Jack 1.0 and AI Jack are the same person is the split second between 1.0 starting the brain download and the download commencing?

(As an aside: if we imagine that New-U's are canon, they are meant to instantaneously back up the user's brain at the time of death, and digistruct a new body into which the brain contents are uploaded. Similar for Fast Travel or any other teleportation: you're scanned, destroyed, then recreated at the destination. As long as only one copy of you exists at a time, your continuity is preserved. If a spare copy is left behind, we have a problem.)

(As an extra aside: the show Living With Yourself features a darkly funny, but pretty solid exploration of what happens when a spare copy of you gets left behind.)

Revisiting our questions now…

1. Is AI Jack a SEPARATE being from Jack 1.0? - yes, because AI Jack has existed at the same time as Jack 1.0 

2. Is AI Jack a DIFFERENT being than Jack 1.0? - yes, because AI Jack’s memories are never exactly the same as Jack 1.0’s, due to the snapshot nature of the hypothetical brain download

Now, for the trillion-dollar question… Does being a separate and different ENTITY from Jack 1.0 make AI Jack a different PERSON?

This one, I’m afraid, has too many layers, because wouldn’t you know it, being a person is complicated. XD

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s take the Felicity example. If the memory of what Jack 1.0 did to Felicity are part of AI Jack’s memories, does this mean that AI Jack also inherits the blame for those actions?

I don’t know. For real. 

It’s easy to say ‘of course he does, because he’s a direct continuation of Jack 1.0’ - except that he’s not, as I’ve described above.

‘But even AI Jack himself, in Tales, views himself as a direct continuation of 1.0’ - but just because he thinks that doesn’t make it true.

I think the only way that makes sense to me is to ask: if Jack 1.0 were still around, whom would you hold responsible for the damage done to Felicity? For the death of Bloodwing? For the destruction of New Haven?

If you had to put someone on trial for that, would you go after the man who actually did it? Or after the man who was made to believe that he had? 

So if we wouldn’t have held AI Jack responsible for Jack 1.0’s actions if the latter was still around, I don’t think that 1.0’s death should change things.

AI Jack is a Separate and Different being than Jack 1.0, and should not be held responsible for any of 1.0’s actions.

The defense rests--

Wait, actually…

There is one exception to my closing statement.

AI Jack is a Separate and Different being than Jack 1.0, and should not be held responsible for any of 1.0’s actions UNLESS he chooses to accept that responsibility for whatever reason.

Now, in what situation would AI Jack WANT to be held responsible for Jack 1.0’s actions? When accepting responsibility is inextricably tied with some experience of being Jack 1.0. When he would rather think of himself as Jack 1.0, with everything that entails, rather than be completely separate from him.

When there’s something in his-not-his memories that he wants to think of as his own, even if it means accepting the pain and grief and other baggage that comes with it.

Consider the following segment from my fic, in which AI Jack, by now pretty invested in the idea that he is NOT Jack 1.0, believes he has a fleeting chance to speak to the ghost of Angel (emphasis added).

“Angel.” Just saying her name again makes Jack want to drop to his knees, but he’s not gunning for pity here. “I am… so sorry. I’m— I’m told you understand that I’m not… him, but really, I’m not not him, either, ‘cause I— I remember it all. Better than he ever did, ever could, ‘cause he never could go back and look, really look at it all, and I can. I… have. I’ve seen everything he’s done, I’ve learned what you did, and I got it, I finally got it, too fucking late, of course, but for what it’s worth— Yeah, no, I know it ain’t worth much. Just like your dad, always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the stuff that matters. Gahd, you really have been dealt a shitty hand as far as parents go, eh, baby girl? Far as too many things go, really. You didn’t deserve what happened to you, what he— what I— Fuck.” He forces a chuckle. “Yeah, yeah, I know. Language.” Seriously, this identity crap is starting to really get in the way. Story of his digital life, huh. Guess he’d better pick a pronoun and stick with it. Is he saying sorry for what the other Jack did, or taking on the man’s actions as his own? Is he offering an apology, or just condolences? Is he a bystander, an accomplice, or the perpetrator? Well, he can’t be either of the last two, ‘cause he, this Jack, never did anything to her! He never even met her! He wasn’t even around at the time, he wasn’t alive, for his given value of living! He’s more than within his rights to absolve himself of the guilt. But if he does that, if he’s a bystander offering condolences, that means he’s talking to a stranger right now. If he absolves himself of the guilt, if he stands aside from the horrors Jack 1.0 is responsible for… then he’s got no claim to any of the good memories, either. He never lost a daughter ‘cause he never had one. He was never married, he never ran Hyperion, he had nothing, he was nothing till he got sparked into consciousness when Rhys jammed a data drive into his cybernetics. He’s not Handsome Jack. He’s not any Jack. He’s just a confused collection of ones and zeroes, a digital ghost mixed up in old memories he doesn’t know what to do with. She’s a stranger to him, and he’s no-one and nothing to her, and he’s got no business talking to her, and none of this has any meaning. Well. Fuck that. “Angel. I’m sorry for what I did to you. I’m so sorry, baby. You deserved so much better than that. So much better than me. So much better than this bullshit apology. I mean, it’s not all bullshit, ‘cause I mean every word, but it’s still bullshit ‘cause it can’t fix a thing. There’s nothing to be fixed. You’re— you’re gone, and it’s my fault. All of it. You did nothing wrong. It was all me. I never saw. I never understood. I left you with no choice. I’m sorry.”

So, in summary… in my many, many thousands of words of writing about AI Jack, I ask the question ‘but IS he Jack?’ many times, but I never answer it. It’s always up to AI Jack himself to decide. His feelings about it change a lot as time goes on, but ultimately, he accepts that his identity is a liminal space between ‘Handsome Jack’ and ‘Not Handsome Jack’. 

Is AI Jack the same person as Handsome Jack 1.0, or is he someone different?

Yes. 

[damnfandomproblems]

Not OP of #5168 but an agree-er of their stance

99.9% of AI being used is fandom spaces is theft. The AI is created off of dozens and dozens stole fanfics, fanart, posts, etcetera. By using AI you are supporting theft. You are telling artists that they don't deserve respect, that your enjoyment is worth more then them and all the time, effort, and skill they have learned and use to partake in fandom.

By using AI, you are taking the "fan" out of fandom. You are trying to turn an art based community into another content shop that only exists for your selfish pleasure

AI art doesn't exist, sure, AI images/text exist, but it is not art, it's a machine using stolen data to plagiarize and paraphrase something people have made. There is no soul, no humanity, no love, care, effort or personality in AI images/text. It is not art, it is selfish greedy theft

If you use AI that you cannot 100% be certain was trained on consensually given data, you are selfish and extremely disrespectful towards of your fellow fans, no ifs, ands, or buts

(By art, I mean all art: writing, drawing, etcetera)

Posting as a response to a previous problem.

[johncarter54]

Write essays and do your homeworks much faster by using AI powered tool NetusAI. Less work - more time for your life!

[canmom]

a visit to the house of the robot priests

there are a lot things written about LLMs, many of them dubious. some are interesting tho. since my brain has apparently decided that it wants to know what the deal is, here's some stuff i've been reading.

most of these are pretty old (in present-day AI research time) because I didn't really want to touch this tech for the last couple of years. other people weren't so reticent and drew their own conclusions.

wolfram on transformers (2023)

stephen wolfram's explanation of transformer architecture from 2023 is very good, and he manages to keep the usual self-promotional "i am stephen wolfram, the cleverest boy" stuff to a manageable level. (tho to be fair on the guy, i think his research into cellular automata as models for physics is genuinely very interesting, and probably worth digging into further at some point, even if just to give some interesting analogies between things.) along with 3blue1brown, I feel like this is one of the best places to get an accessible overview of how these machines work and what the jargon means.

the next couple articles that were kindly sent to me by @voyantvoid as a result of my toying around with LLMs recently. they're taking me back to LessWrong. here we go again...

simulators (2022)

this long article 'simulators' for the 'alignment forum' (a lesswrong offshoot) from 2022 by someone called janus - a kind of passionate AI mystic who runs the website generative.ink - suffers a fair bit from having big yud as one of its main interlocutors, but in the process of pushing back on rat received wisdom it does say some interesting things about how these machines work (conceiving of the language model as something like the 'laws of motion' in which various character-states might evolve). notably it has a pretty systematic overview of previous narratives about the roles AI might play, and the way the current generation of language models is distinct from them.

just, you know, it's lesswrong, I feel like a demon linking it here. don't get lost in the sauce.

the author, janus, evidently has some real experience fiddling with these systems and exploring the space of behaviour, and be in dialogue with other people who are equally engaged. indeed, janus and friends seem to have developed a game of creating gardens of language models interacting with each other, largely for poetic/play purposes. when you get used to the banal chatgpt-voice, it's cool to see that the models have a territory that gets kinda freaky with it.

the general vibe is a bit like 'empty spaces', but rather than being a sort of community writing prompt, they're probing the AIs and setting them off against each other to elicit reactions that fit a particular vibe.

the generally aesthetically-oriented aspect of this micro-subculture seems to be a bit of a point of contention from the broader lesswrong milieu; if I may paraphrase, here janus responds to a challenge by arguing that they are developing essentially an intuitive sense for these systems' behaviour through playing with them a lot, and thereby essentially developing a personal idiolect of jargon and metaphors to describe these experiences. I honestly respect this - it brings to mind the stuff I've been on lately about play and ritual in relation to TTRPGs, and the experience of graphics programming as shaping my relationship to the real world and what I appreciate in it. as I said there, computers are for playing with. I am increasingly fixating on 'play' as a kind of central concept of what's important to me. I really should hurry up and read wittgenstein.

thinking on this, I feel like perceiving LLMs, emotionally speaking, as eager roleplayers made them feel a lot more palatable to me and led to this investigation. this relates to the analogy between 'scratchpad' reasoning about how to interact socially generated by recent LLMs like DeepSeek R1, and an autistic way of interacting with people. I think it's very easy to go way too far with this anthropomorphism, so I'm wary of it - especially since I know these systems are designed (rather: finetuned) to have an affect that is charming, friendly and human-like in order to be appealing products. even so, the fact that they exhibit this behaviour is notable.

three layer model

a later evolution of this attempt to philosophically break down LLMs comes from Jan Kulveit's three-layer model of types of responses an LLM can give (its rote trained responses, its more subtle and flexible character-roleplay, and the underlying statistics model). Kulveit raises the kind of map-territory issues this induces, just as human conceptions of our own thinking tend to shape the way we act in the future.

I think this is probably more of just a useful sorta phenomological narrative tool for humans than a 'real' representation of the underlying dynamics - similar to the Freudian superego/ego/id, the common 'lizard brain' metaphor and other such onion-like ideas of the brain. it seems more apt to see these as rough categories of behaviour that the system can express in different circumstances. Kulveit is concerned with layers of the system developing self-conception, so we get lines like:

On the other hand - and this is a bit of my pet idea - I believe the Ground Layer itself can become more situationally aware and reflective, through noticing its presence in its sensory inputs. The resulting awareness and implicit drive to change the world would be significantly less understandable than the Character level. If you want to get a more visceral feel of the otherness, the Ocean from Lem's Solaris comes to mind.

it's a fun science fiction concept, but I am kinda skeptical here about the distinction between 'Ground Layer' and 'Character Layer' being more than approximate description of the different aspects of the model's behaviour.

at the same time, as with all attempts to explore a complicated problem and find the right metaphors, it's absolutely useful to make an attempt and then interrogate how well it works. so I respect the attempt. since I was recently reading about early thermodynamics research, it reminds me of the period in the late 18th and early 19th century where we were putting together a lot of partial glimpses of the idea of energy, the behaviour of gases, etc., but had yet to fully put it together into the elegant formalisms we take for granted now.

of course, psychology has been trying this sort of narrative-based approach to understanding humans for a lot longer, producing a bewildering array of models and categorisation schemes for the way humans think. it remains to be seen if the much greater manipulability of LLMs - c.f. interpretability research - lets us get further.

oh hey it's that guy

tumblr's own rob nostalgebraist, known for running a very popular personalised GPT-2-based bot account on here, speculated on LW on the limits of LLMs and the ways they fail back in 2021. although he seems unsatisfied with the post, there's a lot in here that's very interesting. I haven't fully digested it all, and tbh it's probably one to come back to later.

the Nature paper

while I was writing this post, @cherrvak dropped by my inbox with some interesting discussion, and drew my attention to a paper in Nature on the subject of LLMs and the roleplaying metaphor. as you'd expect from Nature, it's written with a lot of clarity; apparently there is some controversy over whether it built on the ideas of the Cyborgism group (Janus and co.) without attribution, since it follows a very similar account of a 'multiverse' of superposed possible characters and the AI as a 'simulator' (though in fact it does in fact cite Janus's Simulation post... is this the first time LessWrong gets cited in Nature? what a world we've ended up in).

still, it's honestly a pretty good summary of this group's ideas. the paper's thought experiment of an LLM playing "20 questions" and determining what answer to give at the end, based on the path taken, is particularly succinct and insightful for explaining this 'superposition' concept.

accordingly, they cover, in clear language, a lot of the ideas we've discussed above - the 'simulator' of the underlying probabilistic model set up to produce a chain token by token, the 'simulacrum' models it acts out, etc. etc.

one interesting passage concerns the use of first-person pronouns by the model, emphasising that even if it expresses a desire for self-preservation in the voice of a character it is roleplaying, this is essentially hollow; the system as a whole is not wrong when it says that it does not actually have any desires. i think this is something of the crux of why LLMs fuck with our intuitions so much. you can't accurately say that an LLM is 'just telling you what (it thinks) you want to hear', because it has no internal model of you and your wants in the way that we're familiar with. however, it will extrapolate a narrative given to it, and potentially converge into roleplaying a character who's trying to flatter you in this way.

how far does an LLM take into account your likely reaction?

in theory, an LLM could easily continue both sides of the conversation, instead of having a special token that signals to the controlling software to hand input back to the user.

it's unclear whether it performs prediction of your likely responses and then reasons off that. the 'scratchpad' reasoning generated by deepseek-r1 (a sort of hacky way to get a feedback loop on its own output, that lets the LLM do more complex computation) involves fairly explicit discussion of the likely effects of certain language choices. for example, when I asked why it always seems to begin its chain of thought with 'alright', the resulting chain of thought included:

Next, explaining that "Alright" is part of my training helps them understand that it's a deliberate choice in my design. It's meant to make interactions feel more natural and conversational. People appreciate when communication feels human-like, so this explanation helps build trust and connection. I should also mention that it's a way to set the tone for engagement. Starting with "Alright" makes me sound approachable and ready to help, which is great for user experience. It subtly signals that we're entering a conversational space where they can ask questions or share thoughts freely.

however, I haven't personally yet seen it generate responses along the lines of "if I do x, the user would probably (...). I would rather that they (...). instead, I should (...)". there is a lot of concern getting passed around LessWrong about this sort of deceptive reasoning, and that seems to cross over into the actual people running these machines. for example OpenAI (a company more or less run by people who are pretty deep in the LW-influenced sauce) managed to entice a model to generate a chain of thought in which it concluded it should attempt to mess with its retraining process. they interpreted it as the model being willing to 'fake' its 'alignment'.

while it's likely possible to push the model to generate this kind of reasoning with a suitable prompt (I should try it), I remain pretty skeptical that in general it is producing this kind of 'if I do x then y' reasoning.

on Markov chains

a friend of mine dismissively referred to LLMs as basically Markov chains, and in a sense, she's right: because they have a graph of states, and transfer between states with certain probabilities, that is what a Markov chain is. however, it's doing something far more complex than simple ngram-based prediction based on the last few words!

for the 'Markov chain' description to be correct, we need a node in the graph for every single possible string of tokens that fits within the context window (or at least, for every possible internal state of the LLM when it generates tokens), and also considerable computation is required in order to generate the probabilities. I feel like that computation, which compresses, interpolates and extrapolates the patterns in the input data to guess what the probability would be for novel input, is kind of the interesting part here.

gwern

a few names show up all over this field. one of them is Gwern Branwen. this person has been active on LW and various adjacent websites such as Reddit and Hacker News at least as far back as around 2014, when david gerard was still into LW and wrote them some music. my general impression is of a widely read and very energetic nerd. I don't know how they have so much time to write all this.

there is probably a lot to say about gwern but I am wary of interacting too much because I get that internal feeling about being led up the garden path into someone's intense ideology. nevertheless! I am envious, as I believe I may have said previously, of how much shit they've accumulated on their website, and the cool hover-for-context javascript gimmick which makes the thing even more of a rabbit hole. they have information on a lot of things, including art shit - hell they've got anime reviews. usually this is the kind of website I'd go totally gaga for.

but what I find deeply offputting about Gwern is they have this bizarre drive to just occasionally go into what I can only describe as eugenicist mode. like when they pull out the evopsych true believer angle, or random statistics about mental illness and "life outcomes". this is generally stated without much rhetoric, just casually dropped in here and there. this preoccupation is combined with a strangely acerbic, matter of fact tone across much of the site which sits at odds with the playful material that seems to interest them.

for example, they have a tag page on their site about psychedelics that is largely a list of research papers presented without comment. what does Gwern think of LSD - are they as negative as they are about dreams? what theme am I to take from these papers?

anyway, I ended up on there because the course of my reading took me to this short story. i don't think tells me much about anything related to AI besides gwern's worldview and what they're worried about (a classic post-cyberpunk scenario of 'AI breaking out of containment'), but it is impressive in its density of references to interesting research and internet stuff, complete with impressively thorough citations for concepts briefly alluded to in the course of the story.

to repeat a cliché, scifi is about the present, not the future. the present has a lot of crazy shit going on in it!apparently me and gwern are interested in a lot of the same things, but we respond to very different things in it.

why

I went out to research AI, but it seems I am ending up researching the commenters-about-AI.

I think you might notice that some of the characters who appear in this story are like... weirdos, right? whatever any one person's interest is, they're all kind of intense about it. and that's kind of what draws me to them! sometimes I will run into someone online who I can't easily pigeonhole into a familiar category, perhaps because they're expressing an ideology I've never seen before. I will often end up scrolling down their writing for a while trying to figure out what their deal is. in keeping with all this discussion of thought in large part involving a prediction-sensory feedback loop, usually what gets me is that I find this person surprising: I've never met anyone like this. they're interesting, because they force me to come up with a new category and expand my model of the world. but sooner or later I get that category and I figure out, say, 'ok, this person is just an accelerationist, I know what accelerationists are like'.

and like - I think something similar happened with LLMs recently. I'm not sure what it was specifically - perhaps the combo of getting real introspective on LSD a couple months ago leading me to think a lot about mental representations and communication, as well as finding that I could run them locally and finally getting that 'whoah these things generate way better output than you'd expect' experience that most people already did. one way or another, it bumped my interest in them from 'idle curiosity' to 'what is their deal for real'. plus it like, interacts with recent fascinations with related subjects like roleplaying, and the altered states of mind experienced with e.g. drugs or BDSM.

I don't know where this investigation will lead me. maybe I'll end up playing around more with AI models. I'll always be way behind the furious activity of the actual researchers, but that doesn't matter - it's fun to toy around with stuff for its own interest. the default 'helpful chatbot' behaviour is boring, I want to coax some kind of deeply weird behaviour out of the model.

it sucks so bad that we have invented something so deeply strange and the uses we put it to are generally so banal.

I don't know if I really see a use for them in my art. beyond AI being really bad vibes for most people I'd show my art to, I don't want to deprive myself of the joy of exploration that comes with making my own drawings and films etc.

perhaps the main thing I'm getting out of it is a clarification about what it is I like about things in general. there is a tremendous joy in playing with a complex thing and learning to understand it better.

[desklib72]

How AI Paraphrasing Tools Will Help You Write Original Content

In today's running world, it is very cumbersome and time-consuming to generate new and original content. Be it a student, a blogger, or a professional writer, the demand for high-quality output in the least amount of time is always there. Fortunately, AI technology has made content creation much easier, including the use of paraphrasing tools.

These tools help in paraphrasing or rephrasing content that is peculiar and unique just for you, providing originality to your content with no extra effort. In this blog, we will talk about an AI-based Paraphraser, AI Text Rewriter, and AI Content Rewriter and how they reduce your workload by adding more finesse to your content.

What is a Paraphrasing Tool?

A paraphrasing tool is a web-based utility that is intended to paraphrase sentences or paragraphs while maintaining their actual meaning. It is an easy way to provide plagiarism-free content by presenting the ideas in a new and different manner. You do not need to go through the headache of manually rewriting text when you have an AI-based paraphraser to restructure your content effectively. This results in unique content from your original one within seconds and saves a lot of time and effort.

How Does an AI-Based Paraphraser Work?

AI paraphrasers are more intelligent compared to the earlier tools. While older paraphrasing tools simply changed words with synonyms, an AI Text Rewriter knows the context of your content and is thus able to paraphrase whole sentences into natural, readable sentences. This AI-powered technology adjusts the tone of your content to suit your needs, whether formal, casual, or creative. With an AI Content Rewriter, your content comes out unique, consistent, and to the liking of your target audience.

Advantages of Using the AI Paraphrasing Tool

Save Time: Writing will always take more time, mainly when multitasking. A paraphrasing tool helps in putting words together from other material to make a quick rewording. You know writing takes time, so why not spend extra time on more critical situations?.

Avoids Plagiarism: Plagiarism is one of the biggest headaches any writer can have. An AI-based paraphraser will reword your content thoroughly, reducing the chances of duplication and keeping it original.

Improves Readability: Other than the basic tools available, an AI text rewriter would enhance sentence structures and flow in your content.

Boosts Creativity: These tools give your content a new light and inspire new ideas. They can even suggest improvements in tone and style to make your content engaging and impactful.

Why Use Desklib's Paraphrasing Tool?

The Desklib AI paraphrasing tool is much more advanced than just simple word replacement. It understands the context to provide you with accurate, plagiarism-free rewrites for academic papers, blogs, and other types of writing. Desklib's AI Text Rewriter ensures that all your content maintains its meaning but sounds fresh and professional. Fast, efficient, and user-friendly, it has been conceived to make content creation easy and smooth.

How to Use an AI Paraphrasing Tool

Input Your Text: Copy and paste the content you want to rephrase—be it a sentence, paragraph, or entire article. 

Choose Your Style: Choose how much you want to paraphrase it, from light rewording to full-on rewriting. 

Review Results: Reread your rewritten content to make sure it makes sense and edit where necessary. Content: Once satisfied, use the reworded text for your blog, assignment, or other needs.

Conclusion

In a content-filled world where size is regarded, AI-supported paraphrasing is indeed indispensable, mainly for rewriting material with ease or the need to present original quality work. Use the AI-Based Paraphraser or, instead, called an AI Content Rewriter, to cut out time consumed rewriting articles and essays or blog content by avoiding possible plagiarism and building higher quality improvement over your present efforts. Use the advanced feature provided by Desklib through the paraphraser tool facility provided today with ease and you experience it with an artificial intelligence technique operating for you to keep up a consistent flow without even a semblance of discomfort while working on anything whatsoever.

[mariacallous]

Considering Perplexity’s bold ambition and the investment it’s taken from Jeff Bezos’ family fund, Nvidia, and famed investor Balaji Srinivasan, among others, it’s surprisingly unclear what the AI search startup actually is.

Earlier this year, speaking to WIRED, Aravind Srinivas, Perplexity’s CEO, described his product—a chatbot that gives natural-language answers to prompts and can, the company says, access the internet in real time—as an “answer engine.” A few weeks later, shortly before a funding round valuing the company at a billion dollars was announced, he told Forbes, “It’s almost like Wikipedia and ChatGPT had a kid.” More recently, after Forbes accused Perplexity of plagiarizing its content, Srinivas told the AP it was a mere “aggregator of information.”

The Perplexity chatbot itself is more specific. Prompted to describe what Perplexity is, it provides text that reads, “Perplexity AI is an AI-powered search engine that combines features of traditional search engines and chatbots. It provides concise, real-time answers to user queries by pulling information from recent articles and indexing the web daily.”

A WIRED analysis and one carried out by developer Robb Knight suggest that Perplexity is able to achieve this partly through apparently ignoring a widely accepted web standard known as the Robots Exclusion Protocol to surreptitiously scrape areas of websites that operators do not want accessed by bots, despite claiming that it won’t. WIRED observed a machine tied to Perplexity—more specifically, one on an Amazon server and almost certainly operated by Perplexity—doing this on WIRED.com and across other Condé Nast publications.

The WIRED analysis also demonstrates that, despite claims that Perplexity’s tools provide “instant, reliable answers to any question with complete sources and citations included,” doing away with the need to “click on different links,” its chatbot, which is capable of accurately summarizing journalistic work with appropriate credit, is also prone to bullshitting, in the technical sense of the word.

WIRED provided the Perplexity chatbot with the headlines of dozens of articles published on our website this year, as well as prompts about the subjects of WIRED reporting. The results showed the chatbot at times closely paraphrasing WIRED stories, and at times summarizing stories inaccurately and with minimal attribution. In one case, the text it generated falsely claimed that WIRED had reported that a specific police officer in California had committed a crime. (The AP similarly identified an instance of the chatbot attributing fake quotes to real people.) Despite its apparent access to original WIRED reporting and its site hosting original WIRED art, though, none of the IP addresses publicly listed by the company left any identifiable trace in our server logs, raising the question of how exactly Perplexity’s system works.

Until earlier this week, Perplexity published in its documentation a link to a list of the IP addresses its crawlers use—an apparent effort to be transparent. However, in some cases, as both WIRED and Knight were able to demonstrate, it appears to be accessing and scraping websites from which coders have attempted to block its crawler, called Perplexity Bot, using at least one unpublicized IP address. The company has since removed references to its public IP pool from its documentation.

[smut-wars-exchange]

what is "AI-assisted" content (as opposed to AI-generated, which is clear)?

Masterpost | Ask | Rules | Carrd | Dreamwidth | Discord

AI-assisted does include generative models often replying to prompts, but also AI assistants altering human-generated content, such as image upscaling and auto-paint effects offered by digital painting applications, or writing assistants offering paraphrases rather than fully generated text from a simple prompt.

In short: you can use a spellchecker for typos. You can use digital filters for your drawing. You cannot use an AI assistant to bump up your wordcount, or an AI auto-paint effect for your lineart, even if the work isn't fully AI-generated.

The line between generated and assisted is thin but we believe the difference may strongly matter.

[thealogie]

99.9999% sure that BNN story is written by AI. Like someone just fed The Guardian interview into a generator and it spit that out. It’s got that unctuous AI tone and the little inaccuracies as it fluffs up the original content.

Okay yep. I just copy/pasted the interview into chat GPT and got something very similar. Yuck.

Yup yup. It should have been clear from the weirdness of that sentence itself (which I originally thought was just someone paraphrasing him weird) but is abundantly clear if you read the whole thing. It has AI voice

[airionvez58]

BEST AI TOOLS TO USE FOR CONTENT CREATION IN 2025/airionvez.com

Airionvez:

is an online platform that leverages AI to generate various types of content, including text, images, code, and more. It offers a range of tools such as an AI text generator, image generator, code generator, and even a chatbot assistant. The platform is designed to help users create high-quality content quickly and efficiently, making it useful for digital marketers, developers, copywriters, and more.

Website:https://airionvez.com

1.Jasper.ai:

Known for its powerful AI writing capabilities, Jasper.ai helps create blog posts, social media content, and more. It offers templates and customization options to suit various content needs.

Website: Jasper.ai.com

2.Copy.ai:

This tool excels in generating marketing copy, including product descriptions, ad copy, and email content. It’s designed to save time and enhance creativity.

Website: Copy.ai.com

3.Writesonic: Writesonic provides AI-driven content generation for blogs, ads, and landing pages. It also offers tools for SEO optimization and content ideas.

Website: Writesonic.com

4.Grammarly:

While primarily known for grammar checking, Grammarly also offers advanced writing suggestions, tone adjustments, and plagiarism detection, making it a comprehensive writing assistant.

Website: Grammarly.com

5.Canva:

Canva’s AI-powered design tools help create stunning visuals, including social media graphics, presentations, and marketing materials. It offers a user-friendly interface and a vast library of templates.

Website: Canva.com

6.Lumen5:

This AI video creation tool transforms text content into engaging videos. It’s perfect for creating social media videos, marketing content, and more.

Website: Lumen5.com

7.Synthesia:

Synthesia allows users to create AI-generated videos with realistic avatars. It’s ideal for training videos, marketing, and personalized video messages.

Website: Synthesia.com

8.Descript:

Descript offers AI-powered audio and video editing, transcription, and screen recording. It’s a versatile tool for podcasters, video creators, and content marketers

Website: Descript.com

9.Pictory:

Pictory uses AI to create short, branded videos from long-form content. It’s great for repurposing blog posts, webinars, and podcasts into shareable video snippets.

Website: Pictory.com

10.SurferSEO:

This tool combines AI with SEO to help optimize content for search engines. It provides keyword suggestions, content structure recommendations, and more.

Website: SurferSEO.com

11.MarketMuse:

MarketMuse uses AI to analyze content and provide insights for improving SEO and content quality. It helps identify content gaps and opportunities.

Website: MarketMuse.com

12.QuillBot:

QuillBot offers AI-powered paraphrasing and summarization tools. It’s useful for rewriting content, improving readability, and generating new ideas.

Website:https://quillBot.com

https://airionvez.com

# airionvez.com ,airionvez ,airionvez.com ,rionvezai ,airionvez