#like i did to answer mine! instead of asking chatgpt!

[roaringroa]

fucking hate doing uni work with people who aren't my designated group project friends cause some people really just blatantly plagiarize and copy from chatgpt like huh you didn't even try to hide it

[mavcancees]

feel free to not answer this but this is something that's been worrying me a bit, but the dream management account has said that dream used chatgpt to help him when it came to the titan project. now obviously he couldn't have coded the entire thing with chatgpt and with the languages he learned and months sunk into the project, he still clearly did the vast majority of the work, but i was just worried about copywrite issues, i have no idea how any of that works. (and obviously using it as an aid as opposed to using it as a way to avoid paying people are vastly different which is what you're talking about, but it just reminded me of the worry again)

oh i can answer this because he actually explained it ! just to get it out of the way, trademarking code is extremely difficult. and he's working with java which you basically can't copyright. not an issue there

but also he said he used it to learn how to do the things. which means he knew what he had to do, he asked for an example implementation, and then changed it to work for him. and i know he changed it because i have seen bits of the code from the shaders thing and chatgpt cannot output that kind of code

i don't like the usage of gpt at all i think it's bad always, but putting that aside what dream is doing is actually learning how to do a thing and reimplementing the code which is completely okay and legal. and he was on top of that paying people for other things he didn't know how to do instead of asking gpt for raw full code

which is what these friends of mine suspect q could be doing because they just don't trust him and the quality of the mod was already mediocre back then. so we'll take a look at it and see

but yeah dream's case completely different from a fundamental standpoint, seen it myself, these are two different things and again putting aside my hatred for gpt he is in the clear

[twin-wolves-123]

a rant about writing. or my professor. maybe both.

I don't know who the hell will see this, the only thing my blog did in the past two months was collect 20 bot followers it looks like but

today (well yesterday, i'm writing this past midnight)

i had a class. It is my intro to fiction writing class.

I've responded to like, what one writing prompt on here? idk i think writing is fun, creative writing is cool, id like to be a better writer, i might like to do something with it someday, i grew up on ff.net if that means anything to people nowadays

My professor, im sure, is a very talented man. he's had published shit and is a "good writer"TM

we submitted short stories, like 10 pages ish for today's class. And one thing my professor did for the first student's story discussed today was ask, "Why did you write this?"

This kid wrote a story about the country hypothetically having a government replaced by AI. Work doesn't exist anymore, everyone is like partying, living it up or whatever and the story is about a character in college who basically felt like he worked hard his whole life for nothing and is, understandably, upset about the changes. College class gets suspended and nobody is like, doing anything with their life. It was pretty interesting. Most of the class agreed.

And when the kid responded that he was interested in how this one character would respond to a scenario like this, and he was interested in the development of a society like this given how popular ChatGPT is becoming and whatnot, the professor basically said that those answers weren't good enough.

What the fuck?

I still don't really understand the answer he was looking for, he did say something like it has to be, like, what the author is "trying to say", i guess what emotion or thought they're linking to the story

And so he eventually said, he was thinking that maybe a scenario like this could happen to him in the future.

ANd the professor goes, "Well if it's anxiety about not having a job in the future, why didn't you just write about that instead?" ANd then he proceeded to make several comparisons to other anxious scenarios that i felt were way off base, like getting a divorce...

What the hell? Like, he wrote about what he wrote about, what is the justification FOR writing about those other scenarios?

anyways, the kid whose story got discussed before mine he liked, I guess. It was about his immigrant father and one of his father's story which becomes an extended metaphor and like, growing up in the states as his son kind of- i won't go into too much detail. The point is, he liked it.

Because right after discussing his, he explicitly made a point. And I am not making this up. That he doesn't ask people who wrote "good" stories (and he said a qualified good, as in he also said he knows that they can't be good, but they're good for what they are, or whatever) why they wrote this, because those stories already have a right to exist on their own. And then he turns to me, and says very pointedly, "Why did you write this?"

What the fuck is your problem?

Like, if they wrote a good story good on them, if I wrote a shitty one oh well, but what is the point of you explicitly reiterating that point to the entire class to emphasize how bad my story was? How does that help me? Before you've even actually given me any valuable feedback?

I wrote a story about a wannabe filmmaker who recruited two talented actors to help him make a short film to submit for a film competition. So i told him why i wrote this. I had a scene in my head that I wanted to continue about a shitty filmmaker getting yelled at by the actor (after the director is trying to critique how the actor played one scene), who is much more talented than him, and I wanted to flesh out this character. "Why? Why did you want to flesh this out?" he asks. And I talk about wanting to write about someone with very little talent working hard, sucking, but potentially being able to make something out of it. "Why?" Because it's relatable? "Everything is relatable. Why did you write this? Why are you writing this about movies?" Because making movies requires technical skill that's difficult to learn on your own, and I thought it was fitting. "Everything can be difficult to learn. Why is the story not about music, or someone getting their grades up?" No matter what answer I gave, he wasn't satisfied. (this is going back to the first kid he critiqued, too. It's not the story because that's not what I wrote? I didn't find that as interesting, and those aren't the stories I wanted to tell?) I didn't say that, i eventually just answered, "I don't know how to answer your question. I don't know what form my answer should take if I shouldn't have written the story for those reasons."

So he eventually changes it to, what am I trying to accomplish with the story, or make the reader feel? So i answer: sympathy and hope.

This is another part that really fucking grinds my gears.

So he asks, "Why is this not a comedy?"

What?

And basically he talks about how, he thought it was comical. This nincompoop (he used this word) director who hasn't put in the work trying to make a film with these actors who do know what they're doing, like, yeah. That's fair. He deserves to get yelled at. Why should the reader feel sympathy for him? I think it's funny. Why wouldn't anyone be annoyed by this character? Haven't you been annoyed by people like that?

First of all, maybe I don't think like that? Why is that your first instinct?

And i respond to him that i can be annoyed, but I can still be sympathetic toward them? Why do those have to be mutually exclusive?

And the question that I still have in my head is, what? Yes, he hasn't put in the work YET, but the point is that he's new and trash at this. And how the fuck is someone supposed to get BETTER at anything if they're not given a chance to try?

Is this really what you think of other people?

I do ask him how I was supposed to make the reader sympathetic toward him, to which he does give a couple of answers, like be more in the filmmaker's head, or have the actors be worse rather than talented (but that's not the point of my story... they're supposed to be more experienced than he is...)

But this whole time, he's still pretty much just been asking me the question, "Why?" Or "Why not x other thing?"

He critiqued some of my awkward dialogue and descriptions, sure, which was some actual advice. But not one thing he's said during that constant asking of "Why?" has been valuable feedback for what I put down on the page, nor has it made me a better writer.

And like, I eventually pose to him my own question of, "I don't have an answer to why NOT it's about those things (like the music or the grades thing), but I don't understand why it HAS to be, and why it can't be what I wrote about."

And he then goes, "have you been on a movie set?" And talks about how, if I write a story in a world of movies, I have to be convincing enough that I know what I'm talking about. Like how to make a movie, the lighting, the process, the set, etc. And if I can't be, it's not smart to write the story about that to begin with (which you could've just said in the first place and moved on to critiquing my actual writing, I feel like?).

This part, he has a point that I understand. But now I'm left with, am I only supposed to write about things I'm already very familiar with? I can't write about imagined scenarios or anything outside my field of expertise? Because I feel like that's just so limiting. And I, frankly don't have mastery in many fields. So I just, can't write about anything? What?

He also didn't give feedback for me on anything past the first scene.

tldr.

Yes, I'm an amateur, I don't see how you making a point of how garbage my story was compared to the last one helps with that.

Why should people not be given a chance to better their skills? Isn't that the point of this whole class, actually?

And I have no real refutation for the last thing: yes a story is better and more believable if the writer has specific knowledge about certain aspects of the story but... Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. Wouldn't the world be deprived of a lot of really amazing work if people could ONLY write about things they're extremely familiar with? I'm sure you're a great writer and all, and I'm sure that, as an amateur, there's a lot that I maybe can't understand, but why can't people write about what they want to write about? Why can't people explore certain characters or scenarios because they find them interesting? Why can't people tell the stories they WANT to tell?

Why is that insufficient?

plus you spending half an hour asking why i wrote something when i already wrote it, asking "why" again to each answer i give that you deem insufficient, instead of actually going over better writing technique, how to do plot/characters, and critiquing what's on the damn page...

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass. Maybe this is just me being too amateur or immature to understand, but there has to be a better use of time than that.

[amypihcs]

YES. YES TO ALL OF THIS.

I have so many discussions about this with friends of mine. They seem to think that chat gpt will solve everything but it isn't like this. You won't always be able to ask chat gpt to sum up a text for you, that text won't always be summued up correctly, the answers won't be good and even if they are you won't have learnt any soft skills by typing stuff into chat gpt.

Us students are under a lot of stress, also because of a messed up system of education which prioritizes haste over quality and that you just pass the bloody exam by spitting out the info to the professor instead of actually learning new stuff and getting to actually understand the subject, but ChatGPT IS NOT THE SOLUTION!

Fellow students who might read this, you'll repent SORELY relying on chat gpt, you will forget how to make a proper google search and you risk trusting blindly a program which is still being trained! Also, i don't want to fearmonger anyone, but if a professor NOTICES that you're consistently using generative AI for making your assignments/study, well they will (RIGHTFULLY) fail you. There's so many professors who will do it all the same just because you're not using their exact words, but using AI as an help in study is the surest way to fail an exam manymany times.

And from a person who's tried five times her general chemistry exam and luckily managed it even without AI, It's frustrating to fail many times, but it's better to manage to do something knowing that you did it on your own/helped by mates, not via using a fucking text sintesyzing program. And morale is important when you study. Both if you're lucky and are studying stuff you love or if you are unlucky and are studying because you need that degree to get a good job to earn money and you couldn't care less about the subject on its own.

it's so fucking frustrating to be in college and know everyone uses chatgpt and to be tempted by it constantly while also knowing intellectually that it doesn't work and it's a bad idea. like, i hang out in the library a lot, and i see people using chatgpt on assignments almost every day. and i know it isn't a good way to learn, because it's not really "artificial intelligence" so much as it is an auto text generator. and it gives you wrong information or badly worded sentences all the time. but every week i stare down assignments i don't want to do and i think man. if only i could type this prompt into a text generator and have it done in 10 minutes flat. and i know it wouldn't work. it wouldn't synthesize information from the text the way professors want, it wouldn't know how to answer questions, it just spits out vaguely related words for a couple paragraphs. but knowing my classmates get their work done in 10 minutes flat with it while i fight every ounce of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in my body is infuriating.