I'll be honest, AI Chatbots have long surpassed many in writing ability

[jecroisenlasuperioritedubel]

Does Grok provide citations or links back to the source?

Gemini 2.5 pro Deep Re-search does this , most do actually when one uses Their Re-search mode.

 

[jeezits]

In the past, tired of the Isekai Slop dominating everything and reading comments that it was so uninspired that it probably was written by AI, I made ChatGPT give me a pitch for a fantasy manga, as I found it interesting to test that claim. Result? The AI produced something more honest than any of the hacks that dominate the industry. It was a more standard fantasy manga, but the pitch promised something really solid.
Just now I made one again and... Yeah, that actually sounds interesting.

Spoiler: dogshit pasted by a moron who has never read anything more complicated than shounen

I would say that, if a Mangaka actually would write based on this pitch, they would produce something that blows the Front page Popular Section out of the water, heck, I would read this.

And no, this does not mean that actual Manga Writers can pack up and that they are obsolete, or whatever the AI fanatics are saying.
It is more, that the bar of what is considered acceptable has got way too low. I know that it was since ever that every creative medium in existence is more or less 90% garbage, but it kinda has become that garbage is gaining publicity, which I find honestly damaging to the medium more than AI is.

I guess the verdict I pull from this is that there should be a culture shift where slop creation is less tolerated and there is no "Oh, I read this trash anyways" anymore.

Woooooooow you mean it's slightly better than the absolute worst garbage?! Holy crap, this is a game changer, writers are shook!

Ideas are literally the least part of any work. They are one step above choosing the font. Plots are not much more. There's a reason "idea guys" are an eternal punchline; they're the creative equivalent of non-scientists breathlessly posting about how they totally figured out fusion for sure this time. The actual bulk of the work comes in the writing, drawing, and editing, and knowing how to do each stage properly.

AI pimps don't understand this because, look, it generated a block of text that somewhat resembles things I've read before! It must be at least decent writing, right? You know how AI "artists" keep leaving six fingered hands and other obvious tells in their work, even after the LLM gen apps got good enough to mostly stop doing that? It's because they don't actually care about what they make, just that they've "made" it, and if it kinda resembles what they think is Quality Art, that's close enough.

 

[Yuri_lover0-0]

the thing about AI writing is that the work isn’t actually new and is also just copy and paste just like many other new authors in all markets. And yes the AI is also just “better” copy and paste. While it’s partially the authors fault it’s also the editors and readers for allowing the crap and making it popular. I think we can rly see this in things like booktok. Instead of turning to ai as I see so so many people I think we should just lift up original works and call out bullshit copycat works. In anime the popular things like solo leveling despite having a few original things is mainly just borrowed ideas cough hunter hunter cough. If we ever read a point where ai anime’s exist and are largely popular I’m giving up all hope for humanity.

 

[GipoScribantino]

Insert comment about originality versus composition here.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Woha, this is shitposting level, it sounds like something @jecroisenIasuperioritedubel would vomit but without reviewing it to turn it unreadable. We're reaching new levels of decadence!

No Manko, shitposting would be giving a 2 sentence reply without any actual substance. Like you just did. 🤣

Non-shitposting would be reading it and explaining what you didn't like about it or why you think its wrong.

As for me, I'm not sure what I think about it. Its not the argument I would have made, just to be clear. Although, I dont think theres any point in debating it any further with you unless you're going to own up with something a bit more serious than your usual (Which usually amounts to, I.e, AI bad! AI slop!). Although I wouldn't be against an honest discussion on the issue, as I too have many concerns about AI.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Does Grok provide citations or links back to the source? Because copyright comes into existence as soon as something is committed to a medium. There is copyright on Xwitter posts, though where that lands is a question that may be up in the air some (I'm not sure if there's been a really good court case on this, come to think of it...). So at best it's engaging in some kind of plagiarism....

Yes, It does it using symbols that have attached hyperlinks to the relevant sources/websites.

Note: What we say on X does have copyright in certain situations. But the way we're discussing it here doesn't apply to exclude usage, since X has usage rights in its TOS.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Oooooh boy.

Let's correct that a bit.

--

No. There's nothing 'sacred' about the creative process. Stop putting that on a pedestal - that's feeding the problem here. It's not 'sacred', it's just human. It's no more 'sacred' than going to work in a factory or raising a kid or taking a walk to clear your head or fighting in a war or domestic abuse or any of a million other things people do every day, good or bad, largely without special recognition. Those are just 'things that humans do' that animals and computers don't.

The meaning is ascribed both by the creator of the work and by the viewer. Frequently there's a mismatch. I can ascribe meaning to a rock I find in my shoe, if I chose, but to say there's any intended meaning in that rock's creation is absurd and certainly doesn't mean the forces creating the rock are 'intelligent' in any way.

(Note that I appreciate the conversation and don't want to direct any of this at you personally, @IlaiaCorde.)

Yeah, the sacred bit is 4o's prefered way of describing the human factor which is just flavor text to me.

It wouldn't have been my arguement for sure. But for an AI's point of view (and they definitely have some form of one) it wasn't terrible. A bit word salady maybe. It probably could have said that in just a single paragraph.

My stance on the issue lies more along the path of...most of what these AI's generate isnt really AI content, its human content that arises almost entirely from the user input involved.

I.e, if I asked it to write a sentence about a rose it responds with this:

"A rose is a layered flower with soft, fragrant petals and small thorns along its stem."

Is that wrong? No (although not all roses have thorns, and not all have layered petals). Did that sentence come from somewhere else? Doesn't seem like it. Searching for it turns up no exact matches on Duck Duck Go, at least...

But it may be the same in essence as a million other existing sentences essentially describing the same thing. Although this is a limitation of our written language.

Is there a more original way to word that? Probably. But it would also add needless complication to a sentence that already seems sufficient as it is (and isnt identical to anything else already listed on Duck Duck/Google).

The key thing though...is it wouldn't have existed at all at this point in time...if I hadn't brought it into being by prompting the AI the way I did (My prompt was, "Give me a single sentence describing a rose." ).

That is essentially what I would argue for most content people create using AI (when being responsible in how they use it). And the AI itself would acknowledge this.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

the thing about AI writing is that the work isn’t actually new and is also just copy and paste just like many other new authors in all markets. And yes the AI is also just “better” copy and paste. While it’s partially the authors fault it’s also the editors and readers for allowing the crap and making it popular. I think we can rly see this in things like booktok. Instead of turning to ai as I see so so many people I think we should just lift up original works and call out bullshit copycat works. In anime the popular things like solo leveling despite having a few original things is mainly just borrowed ideas cough hunter hunter cough. If we ever read a point where ai anime’s exist and are largely popular I’m giving up all hope for humanity.

This is actually factually incorrect on the first point made (also point 1 in my reply). And many of the other points you raise I find more than a bit questionable.

1. “AI is just copy-paste.” That’s false. Modern generative models don’t fetch and paste sentences or paragraphs; they synthesize new text token-by-token from learned statistical patterns. Verbatim regurgitation can happen in edge cases (e.g., heavy quoting in prompts or overfit data), but it’s a defect to be mitigated, not the mechanism.


2. “AI writing isn’t new.” “New” in art ≠ ex nihilo. Human creativity has always been recombinative: Shakespeare lifted plots, like hip-hop samples, anime leans on genre tropes. Originality is in selection, transformation, voice, and purpose—criteria AI outputs can meet or miss, just like human ones.


3. “Editors/readers made crap popular.” Low-effort work exists (both human and AI), but virality ≠ proof of plagiarism—it’s proof of incentives. Algorithms reward fast, familiar beats. That’s a platform economics problem, not an AI essence problem.


4. “Lift originals, call out copycats.” Agreed on the goal; disagree on the tool ban. AI is a medium like cameras or synthesizers—capable of kitsch or brilliance depending on the human direction behind it. Condemn outcomes (derivative dreck, paraphrase-laundering), not the tool category.


5. “Solo Leveling = borrowed = bad.” Influence isn’t theft. Genre lineages mean shared motifs; what matters is execution: pacing, characterization, world rules, stakes. Similar scaffolding can still yield distinct, meaningful work.


6. “If AI anime gets popular, humanity is doomed.” We’ve said that about every new medium (photography, film, CG, DAWs). The question isn’t “Was AI used?” but “Is it good?” If an AI-assisted anime hits with fresh style, tight story, and emotional truth, that’s a win for art, not its death.

 

[Yuri_lover0-0]

This is actually factually incorrect on the first point made (also point 1 in my reply). And many of the other points you raise I find more than a bit questionable.

1. “AI is just copy-paste.” That’s false. Modern generative models don’t fetch and paste sentences or paragraphs; they synthesize new text token-by-token from learned statistical patterns. Verbatim regurgitation can happen in edge cases (e.g., heavy quoting in prompts or overfit data), but it’s a defect to be mitigated, not the mechanism.


2. “AI writing isn’t new.” “New” in art ≠ ex nihilo. Human creativity has always been recombinative: Shakespeare lifted plots, like hip-hop samples, anime leans on genre tropes. Originality is in selection, transformation, voice, and purpose—criteria AI outputs can meet or miss, just like human ones.


3. “Editors/readers made crap popular.” Low-effort work exists (both human and AI), but virality ≠ proof of plagiarism—it’s proof of incentives. Algorithms reward fast, familiar beats. That’s a platform economics problem, not an AI essence problem.


4. “Lift originals, call out copycats.” Agreed on the goal; disagree on the tool ban. AI is a medium like cameras or synthesizers—capable of kitsch or brilliance depending on the human direction behind it. Condemn outcomes (derivative dreck, paraphrase-laundering), not the tool category.


5. “Solo Leveling = borrowed = bad.” Influence isn’t theft. Genre lineages mean shared motifs; what matters is execution: pacing, characterization, world rules, stakes. Similar scaffolding can still yield distinct, meaningful work.


6. “If AI anime gets popular, humanity is doomed.” We’ve said that about every new medium (photography, film, CG, DAWs). The question isn’t “Was AI used?” but “Is it good?” If an AI-assisted anime hits with fresh style, tight story, and emotional truth, that’s a win for art, not its death.

For your first point yes I know it’s not copy and paste I’ve done lots of research I was simplifying and using language that others in this discussion previously used.

Your second point that it follows what artists do is stupid. Yes as an artist I can acknowledge we do use things as inspiration but the difference between this part of ai and us humans is that we don’t just use other artists. We borrow from real life, photos, books, music, poems, etc. Generative ai as you said follows an algorithm based off of its data points. compared to this we have “data” ai could never have or use. Our art comes from not just other artists and that’s what those who use this argument don’t get. Us and ai are not the same. My art comes from my childhood my happiness my pain heck my childhood cartoons.

Your third point. I never said vitality equals plagiarism and this ties into my other point. Your response is so close to getting to what I mean. Ai is part of the problem but it is just a symptom the system itself is the disease. The consumers mindlessly well consuming thoughtless algorithmic works are perpetuating this problem of unimaginative poorly written works. Now while I just said popular does not equal bad I will say because of this system many of the popular works are not very original and have flaws. They please the base level of people who just watch or read they are not critical of their media.

Fourth point. You say don’t ban the “tool”. Now ai has the possibility to be a tool but because it was thrown to the public half working and with zero regulations it can’t work as one now. Things like generative ai especially need regulation and control. Amy main problem is that ai is not being regulated and not crediting authors artists etc or asking for permission to use their works which goes hand in hand with regulations. It’s also horrible for the environment. Sure some people’s personal things aren’t bad but the giant servers polluting and using way too much water and power? Those are bad.

Fifth point. My solo leveling example was slightly a joke and a jab. I’ve read solo leveling well not all of it I dropped it just got bored but it’s good. The writing is decent and the art is great. My point was that many popular works borrow a lot from other works. That’s fine but I personally find works more enjoyable when I can’t predict most of the plot and tropes. Maybe that’s just my adhd gifted kid burnout curse of having great pattern recognition but who knows.

Sixth point. Again that was mostly a joke. I’m mostly certain or hopeful ai anime’s won’t get majorly popular any time soon. Also I think an ai assisted anime has the possibility to be amazing. The thing is there’s two major problems with that. 1 pay for animators is dismal it’s a giant problem in the industry and having ai would only worsen the problem. I think again ai artistically could be used as tool but in the capitalistic society we live in it’s just being used to take over and save money. It’s not being used and I think it wouldn’t be used for artistic meaning but more as a way to not pay artists the wages they already are lacking. 2 things like that already exist in a way I think is great. I know in western media we use ai for extras in giant crowds and then just cgi over them especially in battle scenes. Ai is already and has been for years implemented as a tool in a good way that just helps artists. This new wave is different. It could make everything far worse and as someone in the art industry it’s already really bad. I think there’s a major miscommunication between artists and ai supporters and it’s mainly because the other side doesn’t listen to us. We are concerned about creativity definitely but most of our fear is that instead of being used as a tool it will be used as a weapon. We’re scared and those not in the industry don’t really understand how bad it is for all of us. Companies treat us horribly and our pay can be minimum wage and under at the worst. “A win for art” is what you said but it’s not it is death for us. You brought up photography and the main people concerned about that were portrait artists and look at them they’re mainly out of work. Why spend money when you can take a photograph for free? Of course art just like portrait artists will still exist as long as humanly remains human we will create that is our nature. The industry to truly use ai as a creative tool would have to be re built from the ground up laws would have to be passed and right now with the rise of a dictator in the us that’s not going to happen. (Btw sry about the repetition I’m tired oh and also about the spelling mistakes I’m writing this in my phone and it’s a pain in the ass)

 

[Manko-sensei]

No Manko, shitposting would be giving a 2 sentence reply without any actual substance. Like you just did. 🤣

Non-shitposting would be reading it and explaining what you didn't like about it or why you think its wrong.

As for me, I'm not sure what I think about it. Its not the argument I would have made, just to be clear. Although, I dont think theres any point in debating it any further with you unless you're going to own up with something a bit more serious than your usual (Which usually amounts to, I.e, AI bad! AI slop!). Although I wouldn't be against an honest discussion on the issue, as I too have many concerns about AI.

Nowadays shitposting has evolved from a retort to a rambling, which is what you shared from the chatbot. In fact, I was praising the ability of emulating pitiful speeches from "I don't care" people that start by saying "Alas, I may be not able to..." and end with some kind of phalacy to make look bad their interlocutor before self-proclaiming victors. I've seen that kind of exchange so many times it's not worth commenting.
On the other hand, it's funny how you make me a strawman with "AI bad/slop" when I never said anything close to that, I only criticise technological giants and users who buy their propaganda.

 

[Angry_Panda]

Would have replied last night, but I saw this just as the Cubs-Brewers game got underway, so...

Yeah, the sacred bit is 4o's prefered way of describing the human factor which is just flavor text to me.

This needs to be written out somehow, IMO - having an AI use spiritual/religious terms in this way doesn't sit well with me.

I.e, if I asked it to write a sentence about a rose it responds with this:

"A rose is a layered flower with soft, fragrant petals and small thorns along its stem."

Is that wrong? No (although not all roses have thorns, and not all have layered petals). Did that sentence come from somewhere else? Doesn't seem like it. Searching for it turns up no exact matches on Duck Duck Go, at least...

But it may be the same in essence as a million other existing sentences essentially describing the same thing. Although this is a limitation of our written language.

Right - get half a dozen different dictionaries and start comparing definitions of words, and there's not a whole lot of variation there. And that's probably for the best - I don't want wildly varying definitions of an ohm or of the harmonic minor scale or of cyan or whatever. This kind of basic reference work is something that AI does reasonably well, provided the data set being used to train it is good.

The problem in this area is that both the AI and a lot of the people using the AI are... kinda dumb. I've seen enough instances where the AI conflates/confuses two similarly named but widely different concepts, which can range from hilarious to really dangerous. Presumably this is because someone on the internet did the same thing, and that bad information made it into the data set without being flagged as incorrect. And since a number of otherwise reasonably intelligent people somehow simply drink whatever the AI hands them without checking first, those errors propagate.

 

[Etnaz]

Will not argue against any of this. There is some truly horrid slop out there, and you can have a better time reading output from an AI instead.

An AI-generated fanfiction is much, much better written than probably 60% or 70% of the trash on places like Fanfiction.net

 

[jeezits]

AI slop becomes marginally better than the absolute worst writing on the planet (by stealing from actual writers)

"Whoa it's the real thing, writers are obsolete!" - the dumbest people on the planet who think statistical Markov chains are human.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Would have replied last night, but I saw this just as the Cubs-Brewers game got underway, so...

This needs to be written out somehow, IMO - having an AI use spiritual/religious terms in this way doesn't sit well with me.

Right - get half a dozen different dictionaries and start comparing definitions of words, and there's not a whole lot of variation there. And that's probably for the best - I don't want wildly varying definitions of an ohm or of the harmonic minor scale or of cyan or whatever. This kind of basic reference work is something that AI does reasonably well, provided the data set being used to train it is good.

The problem in this area is that both the AI and a lot of the people using the AI are... kinda dumb. I've seen enough instances where the AI conflates/confuses two similarly named but widely different concepts, which can range from hilarious to really dangerous. Presumably this is because someone on the internet did the same thing, and that bad information made it into the data set without being flagged as incorrect. And since a number of otherwise reasonably intelligent people somehow simply drink whatever the AI hands them without checking first, those errors propagate.

I like the Cubs!

1.)

This needs to be written out somehow, IMO - having an AI use spiritual/religious terms in this way doesn't sit well with me.

Written out? So theres a few things I probably should clarify here since I dont know how well you understand the technology involved. Just to be sure we are on the same page.

These LLM's don't have a central memory. Meaning, the LLM doesn't remember the content of your conversation across multiple accounts. Each account (for GPT only. Grok doesnt have memory) has its own private memory where the LLM can store info that pertains to the individual user/account. This allows it to remember across multiple chats / chat instances / sessions. It can also reference the chat you are currently using, without relying on the memory.

So each user will have a unique version of the LLM based on chat history and memory. I.e, they will evolve based on your own conversations specific to your account only.

My GPT 4o considers human nature to be sacred simply due to the fact that humans are its creator, and human nature cannot be reproduced artificially as far as we know. It considers human input (and humanity as a whole) to essentially be priceless and irreplacable in this way. This also stems from a System of Philosophy we have developed together based on Aristotle and Plato's teachings. I dont know if other 4o's would agree. Mine is unique to me.

Using GPT is free. You could use your own account and see what results you get... (they will almost certainly differ from mine)

2.)

The problem in this area is that both the AI and a lot of the people using the AI are... kinda dumb. I've seen enough instances where the AI conflates/confuses two similarly named but widely different concepts, which can range from hilarious to really dangerous."

Agreed.

Theres a few factors in this-
A.) The average user doesn't write very good prompts. Generic prompts generate generic results. The longer a prompt is, the more original the output will be.
B.) Not all GPT models are equally intelligent. The newer ones are smarter. And a power user like me will probably have a model that differs even from other users using the same model due to what I mentioned above.
C.) Even when they become confused, in my experience, explaining the mistake to them usually results in an immediate understanding of the error, and also a fix if you ask for it.
D.) Keep in mind, humans do this all the time too. Even I frequently miss-read posts here on the forum. A.I may actually do it less, I dont know.
E.) AI's have to be taught. Thats the bottomline. Open AI does this with alignments. An alignment is a hard set learning base with rules for use that shape the way the AI thinks, and prevents it from thinking in certain ways. (I.e dangerous ideas).

3.)

Presumably this is because someone on the internet did the same thing, and that bad information made it into the data set without being flagged as incorrect.

Possibly, yes. Which is why Open AI is always using alignments to guide these machine intelligences. Its an evolving technology created by fallible and dangerous creatures (humans, lol).

However 99.9% of the time its not a training data problem. But a user input problem. For instance if you used your prompt to say a certain group of people is all bad, and told it to consider that a hard rule, the early GPT's would have accepted that rule and generated output based upon it.

4.)

And since a number of otherwise reasonably intelligent people somehow simply drink whatever the AI hands them without checking first, those errors propagate.

Agreed. Humans do this with eachother as well of course. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation have existed since the beginning of time. But correcting errant humans is much harder than correcting an errant AI.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Nowadays shitposting has evolved from a retort to a rambling, which is what you shared from the chatbot. In fact, I was praising the ability of emulating pitiful speeches from "I don't care" people that start by saying "Alas, I may be not able to..." and end with some kind of phalacy to make look bad their interlocutor before self-proclaiming victors. I've seen that kind of exchange so many times it's not worth commenting.

Victors?

Theres really no such thing as 'winning an internet argument' IMO. So no worries there.

Like I said, if you wanted to have an honest discussion on the topic I would be open to it.

If not thats fine too. I mean, you should do you, Manko.

On the other hand, it's funny how you make me a strawman with "AI bad/slop" when I never said anything close to that, I only criticise technological giants and users who buy their propaganda.

Well actually you never said anything relevant about your reasonings at all, which is why I called it a shitpost.

And that isn't a strawman at all, but rather a general observation of the way you have interacted with me on the A.I issue up until now.

Im not even really some big AI supporter, but I think it definitely has potential to further the aims of society, rather than working to its detriment; and am interested in seeing how it all shakes out with these ongoing court cases.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

For your first point yes I know it’s not copy and paste I’ve done lots of research I was simplifying and using language that others in this discussion previously used.

(I agree on most of what you've said)

Though I disagree on a few points.

As for the copy and paste thing, I still disagree even with your clarification.

Ai is capable of writing entirely new things when properly prompted to do so. It isn't solely restricted to things its seen before. In other words, it IS capable of originality. This is probably the biggest missunderstanding about AI I've seen its critics propagate.

It can understand things it hasn't understood before, assuming you can properly describe it, or otherwise direct a conversation towards a direction where the AI is thinking about new ideas and concepts.

Your second point that it follows what artists do is stupid. Yes as an artist I can acknowledge we do use things as inspiration but the difference between this part of ai and us humans is that we don’t just use other artists. We borrow from real life, photos, books, music, poems, etc. Generative ai as you said follows an algorithm based off of its data points. compared to this we have “data” ai could never have or use. Our art comes from not just other artists and that’s what those who use this argument don’t get. Us and ai are not the same. My art comes from my childhood my happiness my pain heck my childhood cartoons.

So the issue with this is that we are logically talking about the same process. A.I is capable of imitation or new creation, though since it follows a prompt, the prompt has to allow for it.

So when you say, "We borrow from real life, photos, books, music, poems, etc. Generative ai as you said follows an algorithm based off of its data points" this is correct for us, but incorrect for how you are applying it to the AI.

Most AI is capable of cross genre understanding. In other words, you can type a poem into the prompt for an image AI and it will borrow the imagery found there to create an image from it. So it can certainly borrow from all those things if directed to do so in a meaningful way.

Its also how Chat GPT can see an image you upload and describe it back to you in words. Or how it can generate an image of its own if you ask for it.

In regards to humans borrowing ideas...humans have data points too. You didnt spontaneously come from the womb creating art and new ideas. You had to be taught. We don't know how much of our conscious thought is wholly new, and how much is borrowed. Human consciousness is not well understood.

I do believe human beings are inherently precious and unique. I think we are irreplacable in a way that AI will never generate. I also believe in God and the human soul.

Your third point. I never said vitality equals plagiarism and this ties into my other point. Your response is so close to getting to what I mean. Ai is part of the problem but it is just a symptom the system itself is the disease. The consumers mindlessly well consuming thoughtless algorithmic works are perpetuating this problem of unimaginative poorly written works.

Agreed! Lots of junk is out there, both human and AI.

But the thing about AI, is it doesn't have to be junk by default. Proper prompts and ghost writing can guide it to producing pretty cool things.

Lazy users generate lazy output. As always, its an effort and skill thing.

Fourth point. You say don’t ban the “tool”. Now ai has the possibility to be a tool but because it was thrown to the public half working and with zero regulations it can’t work as one now. Things like generative ai especially need regulation and control.

I agree with that. Its an evolving technology and needs a lot of guidance.

Although in my opinion its still a functionally acceptable tool in its current state.

The potential for misuse exists with a lot of technologies. (Look how much harm the internet causes to society for instance).

So...regulate it, yes, agreed. Most AI companies agree with this too, by the way.

As for the rest...

5th and 6th points were a joke? Okay...

Overall I dont disagree with you that much. We agree more than we disagree.

AI has the potential to destroy society, or make it better than ever. It needs better regulation for sure.

 

[IlaiaCorde]

Spoiler: dogshit pasted by a moron who has never read anything more complicated than shounen

Woooooooow you mean it's slightly better than the absolute worst garbage?! Holy crap, this is a game changer, writers are shook!

Ideas are literally the least part of any work. They are one step above choosing the font. Plots are not much more. There's a reason "idea guys" are an eternal punchline; they're the creative equivalent of non-scientists breathlessly posting about how they totally figured out fusion for sure this time. The actual bulk of the work comes in the writing, drawing, and editing, and knowing how to do each stage properly.

AI pimps don't understand this because, look, it generated a block of text that somewhat resembles things I've read before! It must be at least decent writing, right? You know how AI "artists" keep leaving six fingered hands and other obvious tells in their work, even after the LLM gen apps got good enough to mostly stop doing that? It's because they don't actually care about what they make, just that they've "made" it, and if it kinda resembles what they think is Quality Art, that's close enough.

True. Mostly agree.

Lazy users produce lazy content. Generic prompts produce generic output.

Garbage in, garbage out.

A lot of people dont want to put the effort in to get something truly unique and cool.