@GF said in New Concept:

if you can’t suspend your disbelief for less prejudice but can for God being a space squid who hates you, then maybe sit with that and really think about it.

If it’s a fictional setting? I absolutely can suspend my disbelief for that. But history is established. Someone (sorry can’t find the quote) mentioned “it’s just the 1920s but without discrimination.”

I don’t know what that means.

I’m not being snarky. I hate discrimination with a burning passion in RL, and I fully respect someone not wanting to deal with that in their pretendy funtimes.

The problem is that discrimination is so deeply baked into societal systems that it’s just not as simple to me as snapping your fingers and saying it doesn’t exist.

Everyone always points to Wild West settings and says: “If you can imagine a world where the PCs don’t die of dysentery, why can’t you imagine a world without discrimination?”

Easy. You’re not pretending dysentery doesn’t exist, you’re just saying the PCs are lucky enough to not contract it, or to contract it and survive – both of which actually happened.

“A world without discrimination” is just not the same thing. How did it get that way? Let’s start from that Wild West setting…if racism isn’t a thing, then logically slavery wouldn’t have been. There wouldn’t have been a Civil War (or it would have gone very differently). Heck, the entire economic basis of the south would probably be dramatically different. Oh and would America even exist at all if not for the genocide against the native peoples? How far back do we go with this?

If you want to do alt-history, that’s cool. That’s what Savage Skies did. They picked a divergence point (something about “when dragons appeared” IIRC) and then wrote the history from that point forward to explain why their imaginary world is different from our real world. It’s a bunch more work, but it addresses the issue cleanly.

Less clean is “racism exists but we don’t want stories about it here” because of systemic discrimination. What about the laws of the land? What about PCs who have discrimination in their backstories? It gets thorny.

I’m not telling people how they should RP. I just wish people would stop ascribing evil motivations to those of us who just have a hard time imagining a historical setting as an egalitarian utopia.

@helvetica said in Wyrdhold Discusion:

@Serafine Logs are publicly available, their placement on the site just isn’t in a very obvious location.

I think their custom portal has a bug actually, because the “Recent” view on scene logs was initially blank for me. Once I switched it to “all” and back to “recent” it behaved itself. That might lead one to honestly believe there were no public logs.

But it’s oh-so-pretty. Seriously. Kudos for the aesthetics.

@Roz said in Wyrdhold Discusion:

@Serafine said in Wyrdhold Discusion:

True to its name, I’ve seen nothing but war and strife from ARES.

I mean, Ares is just a codebase, it doesn’t really have any influence on whether or not there’s drama on a MU*.

Whatever do you mean? I’m quite certain it’s the first and only MU codebase to ever see drama. I designed it special that way.

@tsar said in Los Angeles 2043: A Blade Runner MUSH - Discussion:

Man, thank you. Because this vague insinuation that Director bailed and crushed all these people’s hopes and dreams of stories really started to get my blood pressure up. He’s a really cool dude, who is engaging, funny, and a great time.

I don’t know Director from Adam, but even if they did completely bail, so what?

Staff are volunteers, and players are not entitled to anything from them that they are unwilling to give.

If they open a game and close it the very next day because some horrible experience caused them to reconsider the whole thing? That’s their prerogative. If they open a game and close it the very next week because RL got too hard? That’s their business.

Yes, it’s disappointing when games close. But guess what - even running YOUR OWN GAME doesn’t mean you’ll get a chance to finish the stories you imagined telling. Enjoy it while it lasts.

@De-Villefort said in But Why:

I’ve been thinking about it and maybe I’m just mad because the Lords and Ladies type games are glorifying some of the worst kinds of people to have ever existed on the face of the earth.

There have been Star Wars MUs where people play members/supporters of the literal fascist Empire; Wild West games where people play racists, outlaws, and robber barons; supernatural games where people play vampires and werewolves; and modern-day games where, indeed, people play super-rich elites.

This fixation that fantasy settings are bad and other genres are good seems weirdly out of step with what people actually do in those other settings.

People point to the staff tools and FS3 design in Ares as like: “This enables folks to run games with fewer staff,” and while that’s true, it’s backwards. Ares and FS3 were designed the way they are because games, including my own, were having trouble finding and keeping staff.

I personally experienced too many cases of staff blowups or abandonment through the years, some of which harmed relationships with friends. So for the last decade or so, I run games myself. That means not only do I need tools to support that (see: Ares and FS3), I need game design to support that. So generally I stick to single-sphere, PVE, narrowly-focused games. ETA: Also with de-centralized storytelling like @L-B-Heuschkel described.

@doodletilidie Be aware that if you allow players under 18 you’re subjecting yourself to the COPAA laws. Additionally, you may be opening yourself up to liability if you allow R-rated content on a wiki that is geared towards 13-year-olds (per your NSFW policy) or by allowing mature RP at all without the players involved having any means to verify the age of the people they’re playing with. Big can of worms. Don’t recommend.

ETA: COPAA is specifically for under-13 but other regional laws may still apply for under-18s, especially European players. Still don’t recommend.

@Kestrel That’s very interesting. I only skimmed the thread, so maybe I missed something, but I wouldn’t consider their attitude “disdain” so much as a different emphasis.

We want people to be able to emote with each other while focusing on one thing at a time, not doing that awkward thing that plagues MUSHes where you end up addressing five people in a single emote and having five conversations at the same time.
…
What we’re trying to do here is provide an immersive atmosphere for a playstyle that resembles improv acting more than collaborative writing. It’s difficult and jarring to immersion when these two styles clash.

Much as I enjoy MU RP, they’ve got a valid point, don’t they? I’ve literally had 1-on-1 MU scenes where there are three different conversation threads going simultaneously between the same two characters. Traditional MU paragraph style resembles neither organic character interaction nor normal creative writing.

TGG, for instance, had shorter poses during action scenes by the necessity of the code. Storytelling still occurred within those constraints.

Like they said, these are styles. Neither intrinsically better or worse than the other, but each having pros and cons. At least they’re up front about it and setting expectations about what they’re going for.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

Everything the a.i. makes is entirely original.

GenAI makes nothing original. Every single thing it does is algorithmically based on the work it’s been trained on. Without that trained work, they’ve got no product.

That trained work was used without the permission of the creators. That is the crux of the lawsuits, and while the results have been mixed so far, I believe ultimately the creators will prevail in some form or another (probably a watered-down global licensing pool, but it’s at least something). I believe this because one of the cornerstones of the fair use doctrine is that the transformative work does not replace or compete with the original. That is demonstrably not the case here. This has been theft and plagiarism on a scale that would make Napster blush.

ETA: The Getty and Disney lawsuits are probably the strongest, as they show pretty compelling evidence that their artwork/photos are baked into these GenAI tools to such a degree that it can faithfully reproduce them when prompted. It’s not just stylistic inspiration.

@RedRocket said in AI PBs:

The training process teaches it to draw in the same way humans learn to do art…

GenAI does not learn in the same way a human does. It’s a false equivalence. People keep wanting to anthropomorphize these things like they’re actually intelligent, but they’re not. They’re fancy word- and image-predicting algorithms. Autocomplete on steroids. They do not fundamentally understand the world the way a human does. They have no actual creativity, insight, or originality. They match patterns and generate similar ones. They do it really well, which is why the tools work, but that is not the way humans think or learn.

@Pyrephox said in D&D Licensing Agreement:

I don’t begrudge Hasbro making money off of D&D. There’s a lot of the merchandising and expansion of the IP that I love. I know it’s only there because it’s profitable, but as long as it’s fun, it’s good. However, I don’t like the way this thing has been played…

That’s where I land. D&D is their product and they’re entitled to stop letting other people make money off it without getting a cut. But their terms are utterly ridiculous.

It would be like me saying that not only was AresMUSH no longer free, but if you use it you have to send me all your game’s wiki/css/etc. that I can use for whatever I want without paying you a cent. That’s just absurd.

Some players will roll with things - I love that. But I’ve had some players quit over what I considered natural (non character-ending) consequences of their PCs’ actions, and others throw gigantic fits over the smallest of setbacks.

PC death is my personal hot-button because it ends the story and makes you start over from scratch. That’s not fun for me, so I don’t play (or run) games like that.

@SpaceKhomeini said in IC Consequences and OOC Acceptance:

I usually operate under the assumption that the character I’m helming is largely an idiot and does idiot things that will result in idiotic self-owns.

Sometimes I forget that I haven’t communicated this loudly enough with everyone around me and they get kind of cagey when I do stupid shit IC.

The fact that this needs to be communicated at all is kind of emblematic of the core issue. Most players in my experience don’t want their character to come off looking bad (in their opinion) because they think it makes them look bad. There’s such an over-investment in IC success, glory, and coolness that if someone is actively trying to embrace natural consequences or have their character do something stupid, it’s looked upon with suspicion or disdain.

@hellfrog I’m not really sure what study you’re talking about that specifically had the 88 essays. The Univ of San Diego site I linked to had a whole bunch of studies referenced, and I cited their overall conclusions. I am also drawing from reporting I’ve read in other media sources, but which I don’t have immediately handy.

@Trashcan It is good to examine the robustness of the particular studies referenced in that article (some of which were from 2023, not 2024, though), but I’ve seen no evidence that the tech on the whole has gotten any better in this particular regard.

@Pavel said in AI Megathread:

I’ve started using semicolons more in my notes:

Until some article points out that semicolons also occur more often in AI-generated work than in the average (non-professional) writing, and you’re right back where you’ve started. I’m honestly surprised it isn’t mentioned in the wikipedia article, since I’ve seen it highlighted elsewhere.

@Trashcan said in AI Megathread:

These tools are aware of the negative ramifications of a false positive and are biased towards not returning them.

And yet they still do, and not necessarily at the 1% false-positive rate they claim. For example, from the Univ of San Diego Legal Research Center:

Recent studies also indicate that neurodivergent students (autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc…) and students for whom English is a second language are flagged by AI detection tools at higher rates than native English speakers due to reliance on repeated phrases, terms, and words.

This has been widely reported elsewhere too. It’s a real concern and it has real-world implications on peoples’ lives when they are falsely accused of cheating/etc.

@Trashcan said in AI Megathread:

This is not true; people who are very familiar with AI-generated text can identify it accurately 90% of the time without any access to ‘comparative’ sources.

You cited a study with a microscopic sample size and flawed methodology, which (as far as I can see) wasn’t peer reviewed or published in a reputable journal with editorial review. It’s interesting, sure, and maybe can lead to future research, but it by no means proves that “people who are very familiar with AI-generated text can identify it accurately 90% of the time”.

@Ashkuri said in AI Megathread:

No one is coming for the em dashes

That is just literally untrue. People have targeted it so much that it’s been widely dubbed the “ChatGPT Hyphen”, and there are a bazillion articles written about how it’s a “tell-tale sign of AI use” by people who don’t know better.

I am not saying that the Wikipedia article was made in bad faith. As you note, it has many sensible disclaimers. But there are just too many people looking for “shortcuts” to identifying AI writing, and they’re liable to summarize and/or quote out of context without the necessary nuance.

@Aria said in AI Megathread:

I’m just waiting for the day someone sees me using the MS Word autoformat for an m-dash (–) out of pure habit and accuses me of using ChatGPT to RP.

Exactly. I’ve seen people who talk about the em-dashes like: “It’s not even on the keyboard! They must be using GenAI!” Not realizing that the em-dash can easily be accessed by keyboard shortcut — see? — or other tricks that pro writers are well aware of.

Sometimes AI writing has a jarring juxtaposition, like a really elegant writing construction (like a triplet) but the ideas behind it just don’t make sense. It’s similar to an AI art piece that’s beautiful on the surface, until you realize that the person has eight fingers and a leg merging with the chair. It’s the ideas, not the mechanics, that usually stand out. Because AI can’t really think.

The only concrete data I can find is this HSLDA article (based on survey results of only a modest sample size) in which 70% of homeschool families reported that they do not use ChatGPT in their schooling, and those who do mostly use it for lesson planning (separate issue there, lol). I speculate that in the homeschool environment, the parent/teacher has both more opportunity to monitor the work and more familiarity with the writing style/capabilities of their kid, making it easier to mitigate unauthorized AI use.

Regardless, I shouldn’t have made such a broad unsubstantiated statement. What I actually meant to say was just that it’s interesting what can happen to students when you take away some of the common incentives to lean on GenAI (grades and BS assignments they don’t care about).

@bear_necessities @Ashkuri Sorry, I should have clarified. This is not based on a specific study. It’s actually tough to find robust studies on anything homeschool-related, since it’s such a minority of families scattered across 50 states with very different homeschool regulations. But I would argue it’s more than just a limited anecdote. I participate in a lot of different homeschool communities, and it’s a sentiment I see shared a lot. Nevertheless, it is an opinion/observation not a conclusive fact.

Students using AI is a real problem in public school, but what I find interesting is how it doesn’t seem to be as much of a problem in the homeschool community. When you take the pressure of grades off, and let kids write about things they’re passionate about, many (most?) of them don’t WANT to use AI.

@Tez said in AI Megathread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

Just as a note, many (if not most) of these “signs of AI writing” are in fact signs of professional writing as well.

The so-called “ChatGPT Dash” is just the em dash, widely used by pro authors and well-known in Emily Dickinson poetry. Rule of three, “has been described”, parallelism… most of these are common writing tools that many people just weren’t aware of before. ChatGPT is able to imitate those tools because it stole the published work of actual writers.

Now if your coworker who couldn’t string a coherent paragraph together suddenly starts using elegant triplets and juxtaposition, it’s probably a sign that they’re using AI writing. Otherwise, it doesn’t mean much. And that’s why, to @dvoraen’s point, there is no reliable tool for AI writing detection that doesn’t have a zillion false-positives with real writing.