In the case of District Zero, it makes no difference what I think or write as the algorithm clearly shuns my content. I came to this platform a little over two years ago and produced original content in the anticipation of being part of a conversation, or at least, engaging with a handful of persons. None of that has happened.
I've thought perhaps I was shadow banned and for lack of a better idea , queried AI for some insight: it suggested some strategies that appeared to imply it's best to conform to a more structured writing format (read, AI slop).
I have yet to solve the underlying cause of this failure to launch, while seemingly inane content achieves metrics that truly make me wonder why!
I do not like where this is headed, regardless of the platform. HI over AI forever!
I got a escape rogg ai it destroyed my two mothe old phone ran 25vhour a day my phone was so hot had tobelremove from pocket Elon Musks Robut army must be stop before kill all humans
It's like Philip has lived the part I was living. I personally have written a draft I think about last week 249 words apparently. I don't know where to continue from there. You know what I might do next? Have AI assist me. I think it's refreshing to think yourself as an artist rather than a creator .
Because of these numbers likes, comments, open rates some people, including me feel like crap.feel like we aren't enough. I think that's the problem we can't unsee. These analytics ( numbers)whether good or bad shouldn't determine the way we look at ourselves. Numbers are just meaningless to me.
If there is something i want to be is to be independent of myself. To not be in the middle especially. It's either i am good or bad because that's the only result i can work with.
Thanks for sharing this piece 🧩. There is a lot I need to work on.
the simplest answer is that whatever it is you do - draw, write, dance, etc - you have to do a lot of it before you find your voice. “Man, sometimes it takes you a long time to sound like yourself.” ― Miles Davis. Miles Davis said that. Miles. Davis. Neither you nor I are close and he said that.
AI is like uranium. It can be used to light a city or burn it to the ground. I us AI extensively, It does all my proofing, editing, and research. That’s lighting a city.
I don’t let it write my stories or essays. That would be burning the city, wouldn’t it. Not a question. A statement.
Use AI. It’s a tool to make what you do possible, and make what’s possible better.
Honestly I just wish that I, as a reader, had the transparency over what was done either 100% by AI or with any AI enhancements. I personally dont want to read any AI. I want raw, I want imperfect, which for now means I can only rely on older books, but then I dont get the chance to interact with the people on the other side. Its all to feed the algorithm these days. I refuse to let A.I do the thinking for me. I use it at work to make my thinking more polished (and even that not always), but for anything personal I write ? Its unedited, as it comes because where there is challenge there is the joy too
I totally agree that Pangram is highly inaccurate.
I tried similar experiments and was shocked by the results. It is disheartening when you spend hours formulating a few catchy paragraphs only for it get branded as "100% AI created" leave alone "AI-assisted," or even "partially-created."
I've lost a big chunk of my enthusiasm to continue with my writing pursuits because of this killjoy palmistry.
I truly hope the message get across to Substack, and they closely review the output peddled by this seemingly dubious App.
The most dangerous part is the self doubt. Genuinely creative people being afraid of expressing themselves or over polishing a piece to satisfy a random score yet losing everything thatt made it original.
The other day I posted, and AI told me it was 100% human. (Don't know about you, but to me this feels like going through airport scans. You know you're not smuggling drugs or peanuts, but you still hold onto your breath and feel relieved when you get to the other side.)
So then I removed a paragraph... and now AI says it’s only 87% human for the same article.
Verifying you are human used to be straightforward mind-fuckery. Picking zebra crossings, airplanes, bridges, motorcycles, trains, cars, and trucks to prove you're not a robot. What’s next? Eye scans, fingerprints, and a stool sample before you hit post?
I get that feeling too. Sometimes I can sit and an hour past. No thought of writing. AI feels such a lifesaver until you realise you havent wrote substance or made deeply connective points akin to the fibres of our muscles.
My use of AI has evolved over about a year, now I’m to the point where I only use it for banal tasks and sometimes, for brainstorming. I think people need to experiment and decide for themselves how they use it, If at all.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in writing. I sit somewhere in the middle leaning toward the anti-AI end, but I’m vehemently opposed to the current pitchfork-toting trend. AI writing is a ‘I’ll know it when I see it’, and I avoid it when I can, but until the detectors are reliable, I won’t support witch hunts. I’d rather see one hundred AI slops published than an innocent author cancelled.
I don’t think society has ever managed to remove a technology once it’s become commonly adapted, so this debate can only end one way. Eventually, the tempest will settle down on an agreement what constitutes acceptable AI usage. At this point, I would put the line at whether the author created all the world-building, characters, plot, and themes by themselves, and whether the words on the page were placed there by a human or the AI. AI ‘editing’ isn’t editing if it inserts changes directly instead of making suggestions like human editors. If we ever produce decent detectors, then we’ll see differentiation in the market, like we’ve done for fan fiction. Clanker lit will have its own space.
Damn…I wasn't aware that ‘structural’ is an AI tell. I love that word and use it heavily. I had Claude remove all em-dashes from my new book already, but I refuse to remove my beloved ‘structure’!
I'm somewhat of a minor fan of the tool. For example, there's content that is either too long, in-depth, etc., and its reassuring to know that this is an AI assessed essay. Even if the author discloses that or not, the check provides insight. Could it be nefarious? I'm not too sure.
AI is lazy and the phrases are everywhere. It's almost like, if this response doesn't read human, it must be AI. And this may be the wave to come.
However, we shouldn't just works on how it was written, but rather on the idea and transformation it produced. That transformation can either be hurt or hindered with AI, but again, up to the user.
PS: love the callout regarding working for the algorithm and mediocrity being everywhere. This just may be a new normal. Hence the brighter ideas stand out.
In the case of District Zero, it makes no difference what I think or write as the algorithm clearly shuns my content. I came to this platform a little over two years ago and produced original content in the anticipation of being part of a conversation, or at least, engaging with a handful of persons. None of that has happened.
I've thought perhaps I was shadow banned and for lack of a better idea , queried AI for some insight: it suggested some strategies that appeared to imply it's best to conform to a more structured writing format (read, AI slop).
I have yet to solve the underlying cause of this failure to launch, while seemingly inane content achieves metrics that truly make me wonder why!
I do not like where this is headed, regardless of the platform. HI over AI forever!
I got a escape rogg ai it destroyed my two mothe old phone ran 25vhour a day my phone was so hot had tobelremove from pocket Elon Musks Robut army must be stop before kill all humans
Russell
It's like Philip has lived the part I was living. I personally have written a draft I think about last week 249 words apparently. I don't know where to continue from there. You know what I might do next? Have AI assist me. I think it's refreshing to think yourself as an artist rather than a creator .
Because of these numbers likes, comments, open rates some people, including me feel like crap.feel like we aren't enough. I think that's the problem we can't unsee. These analytics ( numbers)whether good or bad shouldn't determine the way we look at ourselves. Numbers are just meaningless to me.
If there is something i want to be is to be independent of myself. To not be in the middle especially. It's either i am good or bad because that's the only result i can work with.
Thanks for sharing this piece 🧩. There is a lot I need to work on.
the simplest answer is that whatever it is you do - draw, write, dance, etc - you have to do a lot of it before you find your voice. “Man, sometimes it takes you a long time to sound like yourself.” ― Miles Davis. Miles Davis said that. Miles. Davis. Neither you nor I are close and he said that.
That's what I will do. Thanks you.
AI is like uranium. It can be used to light a city or burn it to the ground. I us AI extensively, It does all my proofing, editing, and research. That’s lighting a city.
I don’t let it write my stories or essays. That would be burning the city, wouldn’t it. Not a question. A statement.
Use AI. It’s a tool to make what you do possible, and make what’s possible better.
Hmm.
Thanks for sharing 😊..
Honestly I just wish that I, as a reader, had the transparency over what was done either 100% by AI or with any AI enhancements. I personally dont want to read any AI. I want raw, I want imperfect, which for now means I can only rely on older books, but then I dont get the chance to interact with the people on the other side. Its all to feed the algorithm these days. I refuse to let A.I do the thinking for me. I use it at work to make my thinking more polished (and even that not always), but for anything personal I write ? Its unedited, as it comes because where there is challenge there is the joy too
I totally agree that Pangram is highly inaccurate.
I tried similar experiments and was shocked by the results. It is disheartening when you spend hours formulating a few catchy paragraphs only for it get branded as "100% AI created" leave alone "AI-assisted," or even "partially-created."
I've lost a big chunk of my enthusiasm to continue with my writing pursuits because of this killjoy palmistry.
I truly hope the message get across to Substack, and they closely review the output peddled by this seemingly dubious App.
Cheers,
The most dangerous part is the self doubt. Genuinely creative people being afraid of expressing themselves or over polishing a piece to satisfy a random score yet losing everything thatt made it original.
That’s why you have to really be human most of the time.
The other day I posted, and AI told me it was 100% human. (Don't know about you, but to me this feels like going through airport scans. You know you're not smuggling drugs or peanuts, but you still hold onto your breath and feel relieved when you get to the other side.)
So then I removed a paragraph... and now AI says it’s only 87% human for the same article.
Verifying you are human used to be straightforward mind-fuckery. Picking zebra crossings, airplanes, bridges, motorcycles, trains, cars, and trucks to prove you're not a robot. What’s next? Eye scans, fingerprints, and a stool sample before you hit post?
Halo i am real not fake
I get that feeling too. Sometimes I can sit and an hour past. No thought of writing. AI feels such a lifesaver until you realise you havent wrote substance or made deeply connective points akin to the fibres of our muscles.
A tool, yes, but not a substitute for our voice.
I added my “subscribe w/ caption” box at the end of my post and the percentage of AI went up, human down. What?!
My use of AI has evolved over about a year, now I’m to the point where I only use it for banal tasks and sometimes, for brainstorming. I think people need to experiment and decide for themselves how they use it, If at all.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in writing. I sit somewhere in the middle leaning toward the anti-AI end, but I’m vehemently opposed to the current pitchfork-toting trend. AI writing is a ‘I’ll know it when I see it’, and I avoid it when I can, but until the detectors are reliable, I won’t support witch hunts. I’d rather see one hundred AI slops published than an innocent author cancelled.
I don’t think society has ever managed to remove a technology once it’s become commonly adapted, so this debate can only end one way. Eventually, the tempest will settle down on an agreement what constitutes acceptable AI usage. At this point, I would put the line at whether the author created all the world-building, characters, plot, and themes by themselves, and whether the words on the page were placed there by a human or the AI. AI ‘editing’ isn’t editing if it inserts changes directly instead of making suggestions like human editors. If we ever produce decent detectors, then we’ll see differentiation in the market, like we’ve done for fan fiction. Clanker lit will have its own space.
Damn…I wasn't aware that ‘structural’ is an AI tell. I love that word and use it heavily. I had Claude remove all em-dashes from my new book already, but I refuse to remove my beloved ‘structure’!
I'm somewhat of a minor fan of the tool. For example, there's content that is either too long, in-depth, etc., and its reassuring to know that this is an AI assessed essay. Even if the author discloses that or not, the check provides insight. Could it be nefarious? I'm not too sure.
AI is lazy and the phrases are everywhere. It's almost like, if this response doesn't read human, it must be AI. And this may be the wave to come.
However, we shouldn't just works on how it was written, but rather on the idea and transformation it produced. That transformation can either be hurt or hindered with AI, but again, up to the user.
PS: love the callout regarding working for the algorithm and mediocrity being everywhere. This just may be a new normal. Hence the brighter ideas stand out.