benevolence

"a vague disclaimer is nobody's friend"

This is a spot from an italian estate agency (we are governed by the right-wing party)

The woman says "Ridiculous..."

I am anti-genAI, especially in creative fandom spaces, but I'm even bigger against witch hunts and harassment. Because that's all what this "exposed authors" document list (and future lists) is going to do. It doesn't matter if there's a big disclaimer about NOT attacking the people listed. The internet will do what the internet does nowadays and backstab anyone they deem unworthy, especially toward ones that they've been given the greenlight to attack. The obsession and paranoia about wanting to make sure that every single fandom creation is not made with AI is, quite frankly, getting out of fucking hand. No, I don't want to read AI works. But I don't have enough time in the day or much less the ability to care about checking. If I suspect something is amiss, I'll just do the fandom of old: Don't Like, Don't Read. Don't Like? Don't Engage. Hit the back button.

No one owes anything to anyone. No photo proof. No video proof. No screenshots or anything else.

There are people out there using grammarly to edit their work because English might not be their first language, or they don’t know enough people to find a beta, or they’re dyslexic, or god knows how many other reasons.

There are people out there who are on the spectrum and their written work reads like ChatGPT because that’s how their brain works. There are people out there who are so goddamn skilled at what they do, others struggle to believe it’s real.

Do you know who else was like that? Michelangelo. Do you know *how many people* have stood in front of the statue of David and thought *how the fuck did any human create that?*

There are soo many telented people out there who are infinitely better than you, be it written word or drawn image, or hell, even a photoshopped picture. Just because you can’t do it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do.

Stop adding to the witch hunts. Stop trying to cancel people loudly.

If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

It's impossible to detect whether text was created by AI because the patterns AI writing follows come from human writers

Because I don't expect people to go to another link, here's the short version, as per the thread:

"When a Claude-generated response is pasted directly into AO3 from Claude, the text is wrapped by a Claude-injected code “font-claude-response-body”. Its presence indicates the use of Claude definitively. Its absence does not rule it out."

THIS is what the skin checks for. That is ALL it does. Here, the skin's code in my own skin editor:

If "font-claude-response-body" exists in the work, the skin turns the page an obnoxious bright red.

This is not something that can accidentally end up in the work or something that indicates that oh, the person just used an AI-powered spell-checker or something. It only checks for this one thing and nothing else: whether they directly copied something from Claude into the AO3 text editor. I frankly don't see how this could produce "false positives" when it's set up properly, but I'm only willing to give this tool a pass because it's so transparent about how it works and what it does.

I dislike witch hunts as much as the next person and in an ideal world people would be transparent about their use of genAI in whatever capacity they used it and people could decide if they want to engage with their works or not, but right now that's not the case.

While I was testing the skin it flagged two works (which, when I checked the site's HTML to verify, both included a lot of sections copy-pasted from Claude) and both of them had plenty of anti-genAI tags, loudly broadcasting an anti-genAI stance and claiming to be entirely man-made, because it turns out that a lot people don't want to read what the plagiarism machine spat out and the people writing their stories with the plagiarism machine are lying because they don't want to lose potential readers.

Infants are given a vitamin k shot at birth because they cannot synthesize vitamin k or get it from their diets, it is vital in preventing vitamin deficient bleeding which can cause death or permanent brain damage. Administering the injection is a bog standard preventative measure done on newborns immediately after birth, usually automatically. More and more parents are denying it and more and more babies are having totally preventable complications in their first 6 months of life just because the vitamin k shot has a black box warning. Doctors are repeatedly trying to explain to parents that babies need vitamin k and parents just keep asking “Why? Why are babies born needing vitamin k? Humans survived for thousands of years before it was invented. This must be a conspiracy.”

Infants, the human life stage notorious for randomly dying with no easily discernible cause. I don’t say that to be flippant, human babies are so incredibly fragile that before the modern era, about half of them died before adulthood. That is a natural 50/50 of making it. Humans did not evolve to be perfectly designed and efficient, we are just functional enough for some of us to survive to adulthood and reproduce. We don’t have to live like that! Looking at the human body through the lens of infallible intelligent design and allowing that to inform your medical decisions is so fucking dangerous.

"Well if childbirth is so dangerous, how did humans survive so long?"

Because 1 in 100 is not an extinction-level rate of maternal mortality, next question.

"What do you think people did before Vitamin K shots if babies are so vulnerable?"

Infant mortality was 16.5% in 1900 and even higher before that, next question.

"Women have been giving birth for thousands of years, don't you think they know how to do it by now?"

Women have been dying in childbirth for thousands of years, next question.

like i saw her use a verb i've never heard of, looked up the definition, and it was actually a noun. not as in she verbified a noun on purpose (like "googling"), as in she just wanted to use a big, super specific word, and didn't even get the word type right.

From left to right: 1795 Michał Jerzy Mniszech with his daughter Elżbieta - Marcello Bacciarelli; Christopher Anstey and his daughter Mary Ann by William Hoare 1776; A Musician and His Daughter by Thomas de Keyser 1629; The Geography Lesson (Portrait of Monsieur G. and His Daughter), 1812; Jean-baptiste Isabey And His Daughter; Portrait of a Young Girl and Older Man by William Harrison Scarborough

(this is probably somewhat related to my other favourite genre of painting, Husband With Multiple Kids Making Come Hither Eyes At His Wife)