• IndiBrony@lemmy.worldEnglish
      26·
      2 个月前

      I would have thought the same if the sub name wasn’t in the image. I’ve heard of Replika. It makes me genuinely wonder what affect an AI girlfriend will have on people long term both mentally and physically. It’s just such an alien concept to me.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        2 个月前

        I installed it once and after a period of time I still couldn’t get it. As she doesn’t bring anything to the conversation (but reaponses on your input), she is mostly useless to me personally. But I can see desperate persons wanting to talk to a mirror if everything else fails.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        21·
        2 个月前

        Ok so I looked it up and it’s marketed as an AI friend. Redditor OP possibly thinks it is his girlfriend but nothing about the wording in the post to me suggests that without making an assumption

    • Sumocat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      2 个月前

      Without context, that’s the only way to read it. That leads me to side with the Rep on this dude’s writing.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    36·
    2 个月前

    Imagine writing a whole-ass manuscript and then instead of asking readers for feedback or paying an editor to look it over, you feed it into Chat GPT as if it knew how to actually understand the words it was hallucinating.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    10·
    2 个月前

    Oof, as someone who does some writing and understands AI I would never. Not just because it would be giving up any rights to my work but because the AI is programmed to have an opinion. That means it’s going to give you a canned range of feedback so that it feels real. The feedback is not necessarily real. In fact it’s probably not. I would be unsurprised to submit a story with two characters and get the same line about three characters.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 个月前

      AI is programmed to have an opinion.

      Well, tbf, that’s the way it seems with humans too LMAO

  • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    124·
    2 个月前

    To be honest, the one thing that LLMs actually are good at, is summarizing bodies of text.

    Producing a critique of a manuscript isnt actually to far out for an LLM, it’s sorta what it’s always doing, all the time.

    I wouldn’t classify it as something to use as concrete review, and one must also keep in mind that context windows on LLMs usually are limited to only thousands of tokens, so they can’t even remember anything more then like 5 pages ago. If your story is bigger than that, they’ll struggle to comment on anything before the last 5 or so pages, give or take.

    Asking an LLM to critique a manuscript is a great way to get constructive feedback on specific details, catch potential issues, maybe even catch plot holes, etc.

    I’d absolutely endorse it as a step 1 before giving it to an actual human, as you likely can substantially improve your manuscript by iterating over it 3-4 times with an LLM, just covering basic issues and improvements, then letting an actual human focus on the more nuanced stuff an AI would miss/ignore.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      242·
      2 个月前

      LLMs cannot provide critique

      They can simulate what critique might look like by way of glorified autocomplete. But it cannot actually provide critique, because they do not reason, they do not critically think. They match their outputs based upon the most statistically likely interpretation of the input in what you could think of as essentially a 3D word cloud.

      Any critique that you get from an llm is going to be extremely limited and shallow (And there’s for the critical critique you require). The longer your text the less likely the critique that you receive is going to be relevant to the depth in which it may be needed.

      It’s good for finding mistakes, it’s good for paraphrasing, it’s good for targeting. It cannot actually critique, which requires a level of consideration that is impossible for LLMs today. There’s a reason why text written by llms tends to have distinguishing features, or lack of, that’s a bland statistically generated amalgamation of human writing. It’s literally a “common denominator” generator.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        22·
        2 个月前

        This continues to boil down into that tired argument that an amalgamation of human behavior is distinct from how humans actually behave, but since no one can actually prove how humans produce thoughts, it follows you can’t actually prove that an LLM actually works or doesn’t work any different.

        So I dont really dig into that argument.