raki

if people wanna use ai in their works, go ahead, nothing we can do to stop them. but at least disclaim that. and we cannot be accusing everyone of using ai. that's ridiculous.

First, that was UNAMBIGUOUSLY an AI prompt. Anyone who says different is just lying to themselves to justify their stance.

Second, how that 'author' reacted to getting caught is how a guilty person reacts.

So 1 + 1 = they are using Al to write and got caught.

You don't have to justify why you exposed them. Everyone is trying to shoot the messenger and then gaslighting about the very incredibly undeniable Al prompt.

Perhaps the upset people in your inbox don't like feeling like they have been duped by an artist they enjoy... But that's the unfortunate reality of this Al world we live in. And how do we maintain trust in art? BY CALLING OUT THOSE WHO ERODE IT

im crine😭🙏🏻 but thank you for this!! my inboxes were filled with people saying AI has been used in anything, even in famous movies. ermmm i think that’s a cgi, sir...?😭

i’m deleting some ai justification asks regarding ts, so im glad your asks anon is one of the last ones i’ll be posting. (will delete it later cuz this whole happening is covering the og post where i am answering a request)

i understand the concerns you're raising, and i think some of them are fair. however, i also feel that my position is being simplified into something that it isn't.

to clarify, i did not become suspicious of the author simply because i thought their writing was "too good" or because certain parts of their writing felt unnatural. i have defended authors from ai accusations before, and i am aware of how harmful and unfair it can be to accuse someone based solely on writing style. that is why i don't think it is accurate to frame my concern as simply another case of an ai witch hunt.

what initially made me question the work was something i encountered while reading that appeared to be an ai prompt or preamble within the story itself, and it was connected to the context of the scene. i understand that this may not be considered conclusive proof by everyone, and i'm not asking people to accept my interpretation without question. however, i do believe it was reasonable for me to ask for an explanation. there is a difference between saying, "this person writes like ai, therefore they must be using it," and saying, "i found something in the work that appears to be an ai prompt, and i would like to understand how it got there."

i also want to acknowledge that i could have handled parts of the situation better. in particular, saying that the author was "too guilty or embarrassed to explain" was an assumption, and i should not have presented it as though i knew their intentions. i don't know why they eventually deactivated, and i recognize that there are many possible reasons someone might leave a community after being involved in controversy. their deactivation is not proof of guilt, and i don't intend to argue that it is, bc what i said was lowk worded sooo wrong.

what i can say is that the way the situation unfolded affected my perception of it. before deactivating, the author made a public statement about being "ai witch hunted" and discussed ai as part of an individual's personal writing process. i understand why someone would feel defensive when accused of using ai, especially given how common false accusations have become. however, from my perspective, the specific concern i had raised was not directly addressed. i wasn't asking them to prove their innocence by documenting every moment of their writing process. i was hoping for an explanation regarding the specific thing that had caused me to become suspicious in the first place.

i think that distinction is important because the broader issue of ai witch hunts should not prevent people from raising legitimate concerns. at the same time, legitimate concerns should also be approached responsibly, and i acknowledge that i could have communicated mine with more care.

i also want to clarify what i meant when i discussed the possibility of commissions. i was not claiming that this particular author had definitely scammed anyone, because i have no evidence to make that claim. my point was about the broader ethical implications of undisclosed ai use. readers often support writers because they believe they are engaging with their individual creativity and effort. some authors also accept commissions, where readers pay specifically for their creative work. if someone were to use ai in a way that was contrary to what they represented to their readers or commissioners, then i believe that would be a legitimate concern about transparency and trust. i think it is reasonable to discuss that possibility without claiming that a specific person has committed fraud without evidence.

i also want to address the question of bullying. if my words came across as unnecessarily harsh, or if they contributed to people attacking the author personally, then i can acknowledge that i should have been more careful. i don't support threats, harassment, or attempts to deliberately humiliate someone. looking back, there are statements i would express differently now, particularly those involving assumptions about the author's motives or character.

however, i also don't believe that every public criticism or accusation automatically constitutes bullying. questioning someone's work, raising concerns about possible ai use, or expressing disappointment is not inherently bullying. the distinction, in my opinion, lies in the intent and behavior surrounding it. there is a difference between discussing concerns about someone's work and deliberately targeting that person with harassment or abuse. if the discussion crossed that line, then i agree that it should not be supported.

i also don't think that my personal disappointment should be treated as evidence. my feelings are separate from the question of whether ai was actually used. i was disappointed because i respected the author and because i believed in the value of the work they presented to their readers. that emotional reaction explains why the situation affected me, but it does not prove my conclusion. i recognize that distinction.

at the same time, i don't think my emotions mean that my concerns should automatically be dismissed. i can be emotionally affected by something and still have a legitimate reason for questioning it. what matters is whether the concern itself is reasonable and whether it is discussed responsibly.

ultimately, i don't claim to know everything that happened, and i don't think anyone outside of the situation can say with complete certainty what the author's intentions were or why they left. i also accept that the evidence may not be sufficient for everyone to reach the same conclusion that i did. that's fair.

what i do believe is that i had a legitimate reason to question the work, and that asking for clarification was reasonable. i also believe that ai use, authorship, transparency, and the trust between writers and readers are important issues worth discussing. if my own words were unnecessarily harsh, i am willing to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it. but i don't think acknowledging that i could have communicated better means that my concerns themselves were baseless.

i don't expect everyone to agree with me, and i don't think disagreement should turn into harassment on either side. i simply hope that the situation can be discussed with the same level of nuance that we are asking from everyone involved: recognizing that ai witch hunts are harmful, while also recognizing that legitimate questions about ai use deserve to be addressed thoughtfully rather than dismissed automatically.

also, i think you might’ve confused a lot of anon words for my response, so i think u should double check a lil😭😭

sooooo, yeahh. i’m just going circles here😭 but, still, AGAIN (i will say my point again im crine), i do recognize that some of my words were harsh and that i could've handled certain things better. i also know i shouldn't assume what the author was thinking or automatically take their deactivation as proof of anything. but at the same time, i don't think my concerns were completely invalid or that they should just be dismissed as an ai witch hunt. i had my reasons for questioning the work, and i genuinely wanted an explanation. i can admit that i could've worded things better while still standing by why i became suspicious in the first place.

Also not gonna lie - immediately promoting your own writing feels like there was a hidden agenda to this reveal.

i think the “using caps ahah to end every sentence” is a bit exaggerated. i’m not sure why that was made into a bigger picture, so i’m gonna assume you’ve never been exposed to a community where the capital haha is the norm in almost every sentence...? it might seem subtly hostile to you lot to the point that it has been painted as a celebration slash bullying, so i must say that my tone must probably be the reason for that—hence, the calling out of the whole “capital haha” thing. to add, i do know that there is a person on the other side of the screen. however, i think you guys think that i js made a post before having asked them. i did, and they made a post about how they won’t entertain questions regarding that stuffs. so, i posted the “i’d rather wait than have authors use ai” chu chu and several asked about who the author is. i waited for the author to respond to my comment regarding on how they can explain what i saw and read. then still no response, i js said that it was the author of the caged. so, this whole me “assuming” thing i did is really absurd when i experienced it 4k.

Just playing devil's advocate here... if the goal was to show authentic evidence, why post a screenshot instead of reblogging original post when you first saw the prompt?

A reblog would preserve the full context, timestamps, source information, and allow others to verify everything for themselves.

A screenshot, on the other hand, proves very little on its own. Screenshots can be cropped, edited, manipulated, or taken out of context, and there's no easy way for anyone else to independently verify what they're seeing. If the evidence is as clear-cut as you're suggesting, it seems odd to rely on a format that removes the very information people would need to confirm its authenticity.

I'm not saying the screenshot is fake. I'm saying that a screenshot alone isn't proof. When someone chooses a less verifiable form of evidence over one that would preserve the original source and context, it's reasonable to ask why.

That's a fair question, not an attack.

HWHWHAHAAHAHAHAH i was embarrassed by my android phone💔 but here ya goo

sighh, i really like their stories so finding it out was really a disappointment to me💔

VALARR TARGARYEN FILO AU‼️

— in which, aircon humor valarr targaryen finds himself associated with the kanal humor reader.