Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
MU Peeves Thread
-
when players are so nasty and unpleasant to deal with you’re afraid of being spied on and bullied a second time for imposing IC consequences.
lol this isn’t even a mush thing, i’m on a mud, but shit i just needed to say it publicly somewhere. carry on with your actual MU peeves! -
@Tez said in MU Peeves Thread:
I am begging game-runners to stop using ChatGPT.
I AM BEGGING PLAYERS TO STOP USING CHATGPT.
she/they
-
@Tez said in MU Peeves Thread:
@Tez said in MU Peeves Thread:
I am begging game-runners to stop using ChatGPT.
I AM BEGGING PLAYERS TO STOP USING CHATGPT.
at this point i’m gonna hazard the suggestion of maybe telling the people in question that you can tell they’re using ChatGPT.
maybe you can privately shame them into stopping.
cuz they probably won’t just from reading this. XD
In Occam I trust.
-
@Coin You’re right. Sometimes I just need to scream into the void, though. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and tell them WE KNOW YOU ARE DOING THIS so that they can course correct, but it’s a bannable offense if they keep it up.
AND EXASPERATING. I just don’t get it.
she/they
-
@Tez said in MU Peeves Thread:
@Coin You’re right. Sometimes I just need to scream into the void, though. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and tell them WE KNOW YOU ARE DOING THIS so that they can course correct, but it’s a bannable offense if they keep it up.
AND EXASPERATING. I just don’t get it.
I understand.
but also if it’s a bannable offense, imo you’re under the implicit obligation of telling them you can tell, since ‘keep it up’ suggests they’ve been warned, yah?
i mean, working from the absolute very little i have to go on based on how vague all this is.
In Occam I trust.
-
@Coin Well, I mean, I did. I did tell the player. The first incident of screaming into the void was a separate thing: new games using ChatGPT vs new players using ChatGPT. It’s just the one right on the heels of the other makes it especially exasperating.
-
idk if you’re gonna send me poses written by AI just send me a link directly to the AI so I can RP with it.
Cut the middle man, man.
-
AI is so boring to RP with.
-
I use ChatGPT exclusively to write my TS poses.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
New anxiety unlocked, that someone using chatgpt is getting more RP than you.
-
-
@Pavel Honestly I’m just impressed. You have to really work at it to get ChatGPT to come up with anything smutty, after aggressively reassuring it that all parties are consenting to the joyous experience.
she/they
-
@Tez said in MU Peeves Thread:
@Pavel Honestly I’m just impressed. You have to really work at it to get ChatGPT to come up with anything smutty, after aggressively reassuring it that all parties are consenting to the joyous experience.
Hey, I never said it was good TS. Lots of mentions of panning to <insert weird adjective choice> fireplaces.
-
I have given serious thought recently to having ChatGPT or similar fill out chargen apps for me. I just can’t bring myself to do it. I’ll RP until I pass out but write a background? Going on month 4 and no progress.
-
@Babs I’ve definitely used these virtual intelligence tools to come up with concepts or seeds for me to expand on. Not a whole backstory or character, but bits and pieces I can use to write something about - otherwise I fall into the trap of making the same character for the tenth time.
-
I would rather read the worst background in the world than a ChatGPT app and I can’t imagine I’m alone. It fills me with despair.
-
A ChatGPT app can’t even come close to the appreciation I have for the person who apped into a modern-day horror game with a character whose dark backstory is that he killed the dinosaurs.
-
-
@Third-Eye said in MU Peeves Thread:
I do make use of AI detection tools, both free versions and a paid one I subscribed to after Too Many Of These Incidents For Me, but mostly they’re confirmation for me when something feels REALLY off. There’s tons of AI generated stuff that’s actually been edited or was just a touch-up on something a human wrote that I don’t and would never notice. I associate LLM with being over-long and flat yet also weirdly effusive, mainly, but it’s usually not ‘bad’ writing, as such. It’s weird because it’s not ‘written’ at all, it’s word-generated-after-word. ‘Simple’ language that’s also repetitive due to that generation is probably the rhythm of it that twigs me the most. This article mentions it and some other tells.
https://readwrite.com/how-to-tell-if-something-is-written-by-chatgpt/
IDK, I think there’s also a ‘scales falling from your eyes’ quality when you know this stuff is becoming widespread (presuming it bothers you, I guess). Once you actually start to look for it, you start to see it when it’s obvious, and a lot of the time people don’t bother not to make it obvious.
AI detection tools are only really useful when you’re operating in a culture where use of generative AI is considered inappropriate in the first place. That said, there’s an appropriate and an inappropriate use of LLMs in the context of creative writing, and at least in my own view, it has very little to do with how obvious it is. The most inappropriate use is to rely on it to do all of the creative parts for you, not really forming an idea of what it should be writing for you before it does. This is usually worse than merely obvious, it’s unreadable. What it produces is trash, it’s not worth the time to try to absorb it.
The two more appropriate uses that I can think up are one, invoking its hallucinatory impulse to brainstorm with you before you write the actual prose of one of the ideas it gives you, or perhaps something derivative of that. That use case doesn’t require much elaboration, so I’ll move on to the other use case of expounding upon what you already have. In this case it can function almost like having a personal assistant.
An example of the latter case: I write a monthly TTRPG-and-variety magazine, and we use a system t hat’s entirely homebrewed. It’s inspired by WoD, Diablo 2, Magic: the Gathering, and several other things, not so much in terms of setting but in terms of game design. One of the things we do when we release a new setting is we write a variety of new “Proficiencies,” which analogize to Skills in CofD/WoD terms. These Proficiencies are specific to the setting we’re in. We want these Proficiencies to be written in a certain format, which is consistent between settings, but have the style of writing change from one setting to the next.
We hand-write short versions of these Proficiencies. We instruct the LLM to write a long-form version of each one in that format. We also instruct it to not use the same phraseology over and over again, and instruct it to rely on its context window of previously-generated Proficiencies for clues as to which phraseology and sentence structure to avoid repeating over and over again. This works beautifully for us. Most of the Proficiencies written come out pretty damn good.
All of this leads to the other two factors in appropriate use of LLMs in the context of creative writing. They are:
Actually paying attention. Generative AI can produce some great stuff and make one way more productive as an author or as an illustrator. However, it can also produce a lot of trash. This means you have to proofread the LLM output, examine the Stable Diffusion dump. It also means you’re going to have to fix the parts of it that are flawed in some way or other. Don’t sit there fiddling with the prompt for 30min when you can just fix the output by hand in 30sec. Edit the sixth finger out with your tablet.
The other factor is honesty. Don’t pretend you aren’t using LLMs or generated illustrations. If you are open about what you’re doing, it’s harder for people to fault you for it. Don’t want to read content that might have been generated by an AI? Don’t buy this product. Not all of what we publish is made by an AI, and basically none of it is made exclusively by an AI, but we’re not going to go through the trouble of labeling which parts are which or to what extent a certain part relied on AI, because the philosophy we’re working with is that it’s the results, not the means, that matter. What we aim to put to print are things worth reading; things worth looking at. And that’s irrespective of how it was made. We explicitly published this point in our April 2023 issue here, with this spread (left and right page):
We also run articles about prompt-writing and scripting LLMs to do things like chargen for you given a ruleset and a concept, where it is guided, step by step, through each part of the process and relies on its context window to consider the choices it already made while making future choices that are consistent with the concept and with the already-chosen options. This technique has proven quite effective. Another one we wrote is on fine-tuning Stable Diffusion based on a particular artist’s body of work. We may run one on fine-tuning local LLMs, but they aren’t very good yet, so we’re holding off on that.
The above issue in particular paid my mortgage that month. Since then, our editing has gotten way better. We’re – and it is a we since I’m not the only person here – of the view that AI-generated content is the future, but that it will also never replace human editorial vision. It’s here to stay, and so are us humans.
-
I’m interested in that magazine-slash-newsletter.
