You reckon they used AI for assistance while writing too?
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
355 points (99.2% liked)
People Twitter
8006 readers
1595 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
100%
This person has a very interesting relationship with their rep. I've never even met my congressmen personally.
Met mine once in Iraq. He gave us all medals that he was unauthorized to give, and the state Congress decided we shouldn't get them so, I have a memento of government stupidity in the form of something I'm unauthorized to wear.
I almost wish my rep was AI tbh. Might be less shitty.
Sounds like you are also from the south.
Nah just a conservative part of Canada (not quite as bad as the south yet, but if they had their way)
"She seemed disappointed to learn there were sequels" got me, lol
Wtf, I love AI now!
Though not quite in the same way as OOP.
Me when I finished Three Body Problem (I hated it).
It's very poorly written.
You finished it?!?
First book only.
I couldn't even do that. Not could I finish the first season of the show.
Uh oh. I've had it (the first one) sitting on my shelf for a few weeks but need to finish my current series first.
History stuff : interesting but unnecessary violent (for me)
The rest: gibberish
Yeah, I was interested at the start and then it started, and continued, to go downhill for me. I kept going in spite of growing concern because I hoped they'd tie it up well in the end, but no. It may partially be cultural and I can also see some argument for artistic tragedy, but it just didn't work for me.
Wow guess I'm the outlier? I couldn't put 3BP down, and then I got to the Dark Forest and loved it even more.
Deaths End fell apart terribly though.
It's not that I liked how he wrote, I'm not sure if it was the translation that caused this, but he did not seem like a good writer at all. But I was very intrigued by his plot and ideas.
That’s how I felt too. I was excited for deaths end, but I put it down about half way through and never got back to it.
That was me for the first book, and then I hoped the TV show would get me back into it but I quit that halfway through as well.
Same here. I feel like an outlier!
I don't know why this happens to me but sci fi books that have "boring" characters like Raft by Stephen Baxter are books I actually really enjoy and find the character's to be realistic. Maybe I'm just a boring person irl
I’ve tried like 6 times to keep slogging through. I was convinced it would be great if I just got to the point where it started being great. Now I feel validated.
A lot of writers just write for themselves, and don't really think or care about what other people might think when they read it. That's perfectly fine, by the way. Writing can be a worthwhile effort even if nobody ever reads it.
But if you want other people to enjoy it, then you have to keep them in mind. And honestly, this sort of feedback should be invaluable to authors, assuming it's not an AI hallucination.
"She listed three characters"
AI does everything in threes. Likely it just decided to not like three characters not because three characters were bad but because it always does three bullets.
It didn't "decide" to "not like" anything. It can't do either.
LLMs are pretty shit at analysis, so the odds of this just being bullshit are high.
Yeah, I was surprised when they said it could summarize the plot and talk about the characters. To my knowledge, LLMs only memory is in how long their prompt is, so it shouldn't be able to analyze an entire novel. I'm guessing if an LLM could do something like this, it would only be because the plot was already summarized at the end of the novel.
Summarizing is entirely different from analyzing though. It's a "skill" thats baked into LLMs, because that's how they manage all information. But any analysis would be based on a summary, which will lose a massive amount of resolution.
I once asked ChatGPT for an opinion on my blog and gave the web address. It summarized some historical posts accurately enough. It was definitely making use of the content, and not just my prompt. Flattered me with saying "the author shows a curious mind". ChatGPT is good at flattery (in fact, it seems to be trained specifically to do it, and this is part of OpenAI's marketing strategy).
For the record, yes, this is a bit narcissistic, just like googling yourself. Except you do need to google yourself every once in a while to know what certain people, like employers, are going to see when they do it. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to start doing the same with ChatGPT and other popular models. No, I don't like that, either.
I just had a horrifying vision of AI SM tools that help you optimize your public presentation. Get AI critiques as well as tips for appearing more favorable. People do it because you need to be well-received by AI evaluators to get a job. Gradually social pressure evolves all public figures (famous or not) into polished cartoon figures. The real horror of the dead internet is that we'll do it to ourselves.
chatbots also usually have a database of key facts to query, and modern context windows can get very very long (with the right chatbot). but yeah the author probably imagined a lot of complexity and nuance and understanding that isn't there
Yes but actually no. LLMs can be setup in such a way where they remember previous prompts; most if not all the AI web services do not enable this by default, if they even allow it as an option.
LLMs can be setup in such a way where they remember previous prompts
All of that stuff is just added to their current prompt. That's how that function works.
assuming it’s not an AI hallucination.
All output from an LLM is a "hallucination". That's the core function of the algorithm.
lol they can’t even enthuse an AI