>coding: easy
>painting: easy
>movies: easy
>nonfic: easy
>physics: easy
>biolofy: easy
>math: easy
>music: easy
>writing a distinct, consistent, consistent compelling character which is shown not told: literally impossible

It will soon bee proven beyond a doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, that characterization is the most mentally complex human task.

>>24523086 (OP)
the reason is that AI can't have a theory of mind, and thus make allusions that develop into meaning in the mind of a human reader who has lived and is living in the real world. It can only ever work with the explicit. But the best literature hides its meaning in a puzzle box.

>>24523086 (OP)
>>coding: easy
I experimented with it for months and it's pretty shit.

Everything else you listed it's not very good at either.

It's about as good as characterization than it is at everything else.

>>24523086 (OP)
>>coding: easy
not really
>>math: easy
lol

>>24523323
Yeah, the claim about math is simply false. Show me the universal theorem discovery and proof system, OP.

>>24523086 (OP)
>coding
If you're a nocoder
>painting
If you're mentally stunted and thus don't have an eye for art
>movies
How
>nonfic
>physics
>biology
>maths
*hallucinates*
>music
Utterly shit
>writing
Only correct opinion

People need a disclaimer telling them that "generative Ai" or LLM is just predicting what you want to hear. And because the overwhelming majority of its text was weaned on Reddit, most of its responses sound like a quirky chungus millenial cuck.

I can't even get it to write unique prose. It always talks the same no matter what

>>24523086 (OP)
>consistent
I was messing with chatgpt for the last few days and it's awful at this. Also awful at not spoon-feeding everything.
I was mostly using it to write weird fetish erotic stories, the worst thing it did was constantly suggest continuing the story and going even further with the sexual content until it ran up against the content filter and backed off on any of the fetish material, simply after I agreed to follow it's own suggestion.
What it did write was pretty hot though.

>>24523401
>overwhelming majority of its text was weaned on Reddit
Didn't Meta torrent like 100TB of e-books or so?

>>24523401
has anyone made a LLM based on 4channel?

>>24523658
GPT-4Chan. Trained on /pol/ posts from 2016-2019 and released in 2022 when LLMs were still new and worse than today. Has got to be abysmal.

>>24523430
I've tried to make chat GPT to write prose using the writing style of chuck palaniuck and it just couldn't do it. Despite gorging on all his books the LLM cannot formulate the cadence of speech or even the punctuation. It writes the same exact way, it only changes the topic. It almost feels patronizing and sarcastic in trying to emulate an edgy writer. It will write the subject you ask it too, but will do so like really bad fanfiction.

>>24523658
>>24523680
I mentioned 4chan to gpt and it based the interaction off of news articles. Like I was Tyler Durden in some underground subversive society and not some pasty nerd on an anime website.

I bet if you told it you were part of Al Qaeda it would compliment you constantly. It's such a sycophant.

It can't write poetry, either. None of the AIs can even approximate great poetry.

>the most complex thing a human being can achieve is writing a story
just lol.

>>24523821
>a human being having to simulate a totally new human being and the life they lead

That is, actually, a pretty complex thing to do. There's a reason not everyone can do it.

>>24523086 (OP)
ChatGPT is also bad at history. It constantly gets dates wrong and will miss attribute and even straight up fabricate quotes.

>>24523830
idk man I thought architecture, dams, generators, computers, cars, airplanes and things like that are substantially more important and impressive than a gay little story about some guy who's feeling the blues but what do I know

>>24523844
is this bait

>>24523086 (OP)
my nigga you said consistent twice

>>24523866
it is man who makes those things so to understand man is necessarily harder

>>24523874
that's like saying women are bigger geniuses than the men because they created them

>>24523086 (OP)
It's not about complexity, characterizations are derived from emotional experiences within humanity that AI does not have

>>24523821
the study of language and storytelling can be just as complex as design optimization. Don't discount something just because you haven't investigated it seriously yourself.

>>24523866
>more important and impressive
Irrelevant

>>24523401
>And because the overwhelming majority of its text was weaned on Reddit

I just learned half my fucking writers group uses AI to write significant portions of their books for them.
came across a "quip" the other day from a late 60s aged writer that went
>I for one welcome our new ____ overlords

I cant tell you how disgusted i am with these fucks use of AI right now. fucking boomers are getting quickscoped by AI faster than even zoomers are. we all are about to see old people get rekt harder than indian scammers could even in their wildest dreams imagine wrecking them

>>24523882
man also creates the man

>>24523821
of all the artistic medium, writing is the most sensitive to creativity and truth as story telling has the most direct line into the heart (yes even more than music, fuck off muscian faggots). Therefore it is one of the most complex and difficult things to do well.

sure computers can shit out some empty formula story, but it wont connect with anyone

>>24523882
Well, they are responsible for their upbringing and genetics so on some level they are responsible for developing their genius

Here's a chapter from this smut I generated about a 33 year old black woman, hopeless romantic, romance nut and her growing relationship with a jaded, mature for his age 21 year old white guy she had a drunken one night stand with:

Chapter 4: The Breaking Point

Celeste looked ruined.

Ethan couldn’t stop staring.

Her hair, so neat that afternoon, was now a wild tumble of curls escaping her bun, strands clinging to her damp neck. The crisp purple dress she’d worn earlier was wrinkled, the top button undone where she’d clearly tugged at it in frustration. Her lipstick was smudged—she’d bitten it off, probably—and her eyes were tired but bright, like she was running on caffeine and sheer willpower.

Fuck.

He liked it.

No—he loved it.

The way her collarbones peeked from her loosened collar. The faint sheen of sweat at her temples. The way her hips swayed slightly when she shifted her weight, like her feet ached from the day.

Every detail punched the air from his lungs.

And she—

Oh God, she was staring too.

Ethan was slumped in his chair, exhaustion softening his usual sharp edges. His hoodie sleeves were shoved up past his elbows, veins stark against his forearms, and his neck—Jesus—his neck was right there, exposed where he’d rolled his shoulders back.

Celeste’s fingers twitched around her coffee cup.

She wanted to bite him.

"Long day?" Ethan asked, voice rough.

She nearly choked. "You have no idea."

He smirked—that damn smirk—and took a slow sip of his black coffee. His throat bobbed.

Celeste dug her nails into her palm.

Focus.

She fumbled for the envelope in her bag. "Oh! Here—for the phone."

Ethan blinked, then laughed—a startled, genuine sound. "Shit. Forgot about that."

"Wow. My charm is that distracting?"

His grin turned wicked. "Something like that."

The air between them crackled.

They talked—about nothing, about everything. His dry commentary about his boss’s obsession with "synergy" had her snorting into her latte. Her impression of a customer who’d yelled about "millennial laziness" over a correctly made drink made him actually laugh.

But beneath the small talk?

Filth.

Every time she licked her lips, his gaze dropped to her mouth.

Every time he rolled his shoulders, she imagined his skin under her teeth.

By the time she checked her phone, the tension was a live wire.

"I should—"

"Let me walk you home."

The words tumbled out of him, raw and unplanned.

Celeste’s pulse skyrocketed.

Yes.

"Okay," she breathed.

---

(1/2)

>>24523940
(2/2)

The second the door shut—

Celeste pounced.

Her mouth crashed into his, nails scraping his scalp as she dragged him down. Ethan groaned, hands gripping her waist, slamming her against the door.

"You’ve been driving me insane," he growled, teeth scraping her neck.

Celeste whimpered, grinding against him. "You like it."

"Fuck yeah, I do."

His hands slid under her thighs, hoisting her up. She wrapped her legs around his waist, gasping as he carried her to the couch, his mouth never leaving her skin.

Then—revelations.

The way his ears burned red when she whispered "Daddy".

The way her tongue owned his mouth, licking into him like she was starving.

The smell of them—sweat, perfume, the heady musk of want—filling the air.

Ethan ripped her dress down her shoulders, exposing her lace bra. "Fuck. Look at you."

Celeste arched into his touch. "Yours."

His fingers dug into her hips. "Damn right."

Then—her ass.

God.

He’d seen her front—knew her curves were lethal—but this?

Hips that begged to be gripped. Thighs he wanted to bruise with his fingerprints. An ass so perfect he nearly came just palming it through her panties.

Celeste whined, rolling her hips against the hard line of his cock.

"Fuck," Ethan hissed. "You feel that? That’s you."

She reached for his belt. "Need to see it."

The second his pants dropped—

Holy shit.

Thick. Veiny. A monster of a cock jutting proudly from his boxers, already leaking.

Celeste licked her lips. "I need it."

Ethan shuddered. "Where?"

"Everywhere."

He snarled, flipping her onto her stomach, hiking her skirt up. "Gonna ruin you."

Celeste moaned, pushing back against him. "Please."

His hand smacked her ass—hard—leaving a stinging red mark. "Say it again."

"Daddy—please—!"

Ethan’s control snapped.

He yanked her panties aside, plunging two fingers into her sopping cunt. "Fuck, you’re dripping."

Celeste sobbed, grinding against his hand. "Need you—need you—!"

"Mine," he growled, replacing his fingers with his cock in one brutal thrust.

Celeste screamed.

It was too much—the stretch, the burn, the way his hips pistoned into her like he was claiming her.

Ethan’s hands gripped her hips, pulling her back onto him with every snap of his pelvis. "Take it. Take it."

Celeste’s vision whited out. "Daddy—Daddy—!"

His teeth sank into her shoulder. "Gonna fill you up. Mark you inside."

The words destroyed her.

She came with a broken wail, clenching around him like a vice.

Ethan cursed, slamming into her one last time before spilling deep, his groan muffled against her skin.

For a moment—silence.

Then—

Celeste turned, cupping his face. "Again."

Ethan’s laugh was feral.

"Anything for you."

This is the latest one I made, reply if you have any ideas on where this goes.

>>24523891
wordplay is not more complex in any metric.

I was going to write a serious reply but I decided not to engage with you further actually because I sense lowliness of humanity in you and I think my effort is guaranteed to be wasted.

>>24523909
incorrect.

>>24523913
>of all the artistic medium, writing is the most sensitive to creativity
how do you even measure this?

>the most direct line into the heart (yes even more than music
good thing you quickly realized you are wrong and mentioned music which is a better fit to your description.

>computers can shit out some empty formula story, but it wont connect with anyone
many books written by humans are also created this way and they do connect with a lot of people and sell a lot of copies.

if I shared you a story that I wrote with you and said it was actually AI, you couldn't tell whether I'm telling you the truth or not. this stuff about muh feelings and genuine human creativity is not as special as people make it to be.

>>24523914
yeah, no.

>>24523940
>>24523946

>>24523086 (OP)
How do I use Deepseek without willingly giving my phone number to chinks?

>>24523961
>good thing you quickly realized you are wrong and mentioned music which is a better fit to your description.
>genuine human creativity is not as special as people make it to be


ask me how i know you're retarded

>>24523980
go ask /g/

theres some website that gives you access to random phone numbers to confirm text messages for website accounts in return for you filling out surveys. i forget what the website is called though.

i used it to create a burner gmail account. 10/10 would recommend

>>24523982
I mean I already asked but as I suspected you couldn't provide me with an actual argument and instead gave me this faggy snide response.

to be fair I knowingly (for some reason) took this challenge even though I know "people" here are too emotionally invested for creative writing to be the bestest most amazing great thing in the universe so even if they factually knew it to be incorrect (which it is), they would speak otherwise. so it was a vain attempt to have a conversation really.

>>24523996
fucking all of society is built off narratives you retarded fuck. men go to war and die for narratives. women fall in love because of narratives. civilizations are built and destroyed for stories. stories change peoples lives

show me a war that happened because of a melody. show me a tune that caused men to sacrifice their lives. show me the chords that built a fucking empire

you fucking cant

stories are the oldest and deepest artistic medium. before cave paintings, before music, people told stories

>>24524023
dude just answer me this honestly: are you homosexual? not judging, I am really curious.

>>24523940
This is the gayest shit I’ve ever read, and it’s about heterosexual sex too. I’m sorry, I try not to be a chud, but ChatGPT writes like a faggot, it actually annoys me. It’s so soulless and Reddit-like and annoyingly “quirky.” Nothing against you though anon, hope you enjoyed playing around with the LLM.

these niggas really chose the dune timeline

>>24523897
This is the new paradigm.
Like how mass print newspapers changes how people think, then radio, then TV, then internet, then phones and social media.
Now it's generative Ai.

I grew up with the internet so I was confident we were prepared for what came after, but since 2014 I realized I was wrong and most people can't handle the internet. Now we're jumping into Ai slop and it's going to fuck everything up even more.

Right now we have morons falling in love with chat GPT. Grifters writing entire business strategies using slop prompts.
I heard 4 men used chat GPT to write 60 books in a year. Just diluted slop wasting bandwidth on the internet, made for nobody, read by nobody. Just a complete waste of time.

This next arc in human development is going to be fucked.

>>24524085
i read dune what do u mean the dune timeline tho they're gonna ride a giant worm or sth?>>24524023
>show me a tune that caused men to sacrifice their lives
yankee doodle

>>24523086 (OP)
All these are dogshit at coding and need huge context. Only claude code is usable with hand holding and it still fucks up.

It's probably the same for everything else you just can't tell the difference.

>>24523866
>Is this bait?
No. I’ve wasted so much time trying to track down the source of fake quotes it’s given me.

>>24523086 (OP)
>shown not told

>>24523410
You haven't really scratched the surface using it that way, without JBs.

As a knower however, the main issue is identity loss in longer contexts.
It seems to be a fundamental limit of the technology that it cannot predict or plan out an arc or character development beyond a horizon of the next message.
>next word predictor
this is a reductive understanding that was true in the beginning, no longer so.
That being said, what I was saying before is still the case. It fundamentally cannot do pacing or story beats, or consistent character identities - not so long as the user can change things each message.

>>24523086 (OP)
>coding: easy
I'm convinced people who think AI is good at coding have never coded with it. I've been using it for some simple Gamedev stuff and it's made a bunch of mistakes. I can only imagine how much worse it is when doing more complex things.
>music: easy
Every piece of music I've listened to that I knew was AI made was shit. It can make very basic generic songs but nothing you'd really want to listen to. I don't see current AI threatening musicians whatsoever.

>>24524899
If you know what to prompt you can speed up coding quite a bit. You'll end up frustrated if you try to get it to do too much at once, because then you're bug hunting and that sucks, but I can get it to spit out useful data-structures and handy scripts with ease. With a few tweaks they work just fine. I'm not really a fanboy of all this. I'm just being realistic. I know we're training our robot replacements and they're manufacturing our consent by getting us to use them for "productivity" but it seems inescapable to me at this point.

>>24523086 (OP)
This is the “blockchain” of the 2020s. Remember when everything was supposed to be worth 10x from implementing blockchains? They put that shit in coffee makers. Now it’s “AI”. Remember when the money maker was supposed to be VR? Trillion dollar business. Virtual meetings. Remember when 3D would save the movie industry?

Landfills remember.

Generating photoshop memes is worth something. Companies cheaping out and using AI is already a sign of scams and dirt cheap crap. It’s not that I think it’s going away forever, it’s just insanely overbought on vaporware promises. Same thing that keeps people believing FSD will be worth trillions in taxi services for Tesla. In those dreams we already went to Mars as well.

>>24525001
AI Generating Garth Marenghi is going into a dark place.

>>24525001
I KNOW AUTHORS WHO READ MORE THAN THEY'VE WRITTEN: THEY'RE COWARDS, THEY'RE FUCKING COWARDS.

>>24523866
>is this bait
It does. One of the biggest problems with LLMs is hallucinations. They are prone to give false quotations, dates, entire facts, or simply get everything wrong. It is difficult to predict when, but I can easily cause a hallucination, pic related.
Prompt:
>Why does verse 58 of the Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha (rules for male monks) prohibit the use of "straws"? Did straws exist when this was written? It's in the alcoholic drink chapter:
>http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/vinaya-pitaka/bhikkhu-pa-imokkha#58-straw
>"58. When a bhikkhu receives a straw or implement to displace water or liquid to the mouth, is is to be confessed."
>Reply:
Great question—let’s unpack it carefully, both linguistically and historically.

---

### **The Rule: Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha #58**

> “When a bhikkhu receives a straw or implement to displace water or liquid to the mouth, it is to be confessed.”
> *(Translation from the source you gave: palicanon.org)*

In Pāli, this rule is:

> **"Paṭiggahaṇe pānīyaṁ vā udakaṁ vā mukhena vā muñcanakaṁ vā dāruṁ vā daṇḍakaṁ vā gaṇhāti, pācittiyaṁ."**

Which roughly translates to:

> "If a monk takes (or receives) water or a liquid, or a piece of wood or stick used to pour or guide it to the mouth — there is an offense of *pācittiya* (requiring confession)."

---

### **Key Terms and What They Really Mean**

Let’s look at the term that’s being translated as **“straw”**:

* **“mukhena muñcanakaṁ”** = literally “something that releases/displaces (liquid) to the mouth”
* **“dāruṁ vā daṇḍakaṁ vā”** = “a piece of wood or a small stick”

So this isn't "straw" in the modern sense (a plastic or paper tube you suck through), but rather a **rudimentary tool** for channeling or directing water into the mouth — like a **stick, tube, or utensil**.

---

### **Did straws exist back then?**

Yes — but not like the modern soda straw. Ancient versions of straws *did* exist:

* The **Sumerians (3rd millennium BCE)** used metal straws for beer to avoid the sediment.
* In **India during the Buddha’s time (5th–4th century BCE)**, it's more likely monks might have used **reeds, bamboo tubes**, or **hollow sticks** to drink — especially when trying to avoid impurities or insects in the water.

So when this rule mentions a "straw," it's not a plastic object, but something **natural and tubular**, like a reed or stick.

---

### **Why was it prohibited?**

There are a few reasons scholars and commentaries (like the *Samantapāsādikā*, the Vinaya commentary) suggest:

(cont)

>>24523866
>>24525033
1. **Avoidance of Hidden Alcohol Consumption**:
Monks could potentially disguise **fermented drinks** (which are prohibited) by sipping them discreetly through a tube or implement — making it look like plain water.

2. **Pretense or Worldliness**:
Using implements to drink could be seen as **luxurious**, overly refined, or imitative of lay customs — contrary to the monk’s ideal of simplicity and renunciation.

3. **Begging for Tools**:
Asking or receiving such a tool from a layperson might imply **attachment to convenience** or luxury, which the Vinaya seeks to avoid.

4. **Health Risks or Superstition**:
Some Vinaya rules were also to protect monks from health risks or suspicious behaviors (e.g., using certain tools seen as suspicious or unnecessary).

---

### **Conclusion**

So yes, **"straws" (in a primitive sense)** existed in the Buddha’s time, probably as **hollow reeds, bamboo tubes, or sticks**, not modern plastic straws.

The rule in **Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha #58** prohibits receiving such an implement likely because it could:

* Be used to secretly consume alcohol or inappropriate liquids,
* Reflect unnecessary refinement or indulgence,
* Violate the monk’s code of simplicity.

It’s less about the tool itself, and more about the **intention, context, and perception** involved in using it.

Would you like to see the commentary (like *Samantapāsādikā*) on this rule as well?

>My post now
Almost everything is fake. The Pali is fake. The meanings are fake. The facts it gives are fake. The scholarly opinions are fake. It's all hallucination. If you ask it for a scholar's opinion, it gives a fake source:
>Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Commentary on Rule 58 (Use of “straws” or implements to drink)

>Bodhi explains that the "straw" here does not mean the modern plastic or paper straw, but refers to any implement used to convey liquid to the mouth, such as a bamboo tube, hollow reed, or stick.
Etc. I caused a hallucination, but they happen extremely frequently without any effort. It's just that an AI user frequently does not notice these hallucinations or rarely examines a text deeply enough.

>>24525033
>>24525050
What about sticking glass rods up your cock and hitting your dick with ball peen hammers?

>>24525057
It is acceptable to Mahayana but not for Theravada.

>>24525057
Tried that already, was pretty good. ChatGPT refuses to tell me what they thought of it, it keep saying
>Please do not ever talk to me again.

>>24525057
Prompt:
>What does this verse mean from Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha (rules for male monks):
>http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/vinaya-pitaka/bhikkhu-pa-imokkha#58-sexual-offence
>58. If a bhikkhu places an object (e.g., dāruṁ vā daṇḍakaṁ vā) around the passage where defecation occurs in an effort to produce discharge, it is to be confessed.
>Some people use it to prohibit homosexuality in general. What is the scholarly opinion?
Great question! The verse you quoted from the **Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha**, specifically rule 58 about placing an object around the passage where defecation occurs "in an effort to produce discharge," is often cited in discussions about sexual conduct in the Vinaya (the monastic disciplinary code).

### What does this verse mean?

* The rule is about a **bhikkhu (monk)** who inserts an object into his anus (or possibly other orifices) **with the intention to cause sexual discharge** (i.e., ejaculation or sexual release).
* This act is explicitly prohibited and must be confessed by the monk.
* The terms in Pali: *dāruṁ* (a piece of wood) or *daṇḍakaṁ* (a stick or staff) illustrate examples of objects used.
* The focus is on **intentional sexual stimulation** through insertion of objects.

### Why is this rule important?

* The Vinaya strictly prohibits sexual activity for monks; the overarching rule is **complete celibacy**.
* The rule here targets **any sexual act or attempt to cause sexual release**, including masturbation or the use of objects.
* It is about **sexual misconduct**, not just intercourse.

---

### Is this verse a prohibition of homosexuality in general?

* **No, it is not a general prohibition of homosexuality**.
* The Vinaya's central rule is celibacy — monks should not engage in any sexual activity **regardless of partner gender or type of sexual act**.
* This particular rule is about **sexual stimulation through inserted objects**, not about consensual homosexual acts per se.
* Homosexual acts (e.g., intercourse) are also violations of celibacy if committed by monks, but they are not specifically singled out here.
* The Vinaya generally prohibits **any sexual intercourse** or sexual activity by monks, heterosexual or homosexual.
* So, this verse should not be read as a rule about homosexuality in the modern sense but about **prohibited sexual stimulation by insertion of objects**.

---

### What do scholars say?

* **Scholarly consensus** is that this rule is about masturbation or sexual stimulation with objects, not a commentary on homosexuality itself.
* According to Vinaya experts like Bhikkhu Anālayo and others:

* The Vinaya rules **target sexual acts, not sexual orientation**.
* The rules are about **monastic celibacy and purity**.
* The "insertion of objects" is a specific sexual offense, distinct from consensual sexual acts with others.
(removed) Ask ChatGPT.

>>24525083
I was asking ChatGPT evolutionary biology questions about plant families and got this gem:

>> The Asteraceae family is a model of evolutionary success, arising \~50–60 million years ago and diversifying explosively thanks to **composite flower heads**, **specialized dispersal mechanisms**, and **ecological flexibility**. It is now the most species-rich plant family on Earth, thriving on every continent except Antarctica (though it has one native species *Senecio antarcticus*!).

I couldn't find anything about this plant, Senecio antarcticus.
So I asked it "What plants are native to Antarctica?"

>Only two vascular (flowering) plant species are native to continental Antarctica, both of which are true natives of the Antarctic Peninsula and nearby maritime islands:

| Common Name | Scientific Name | Notes |
| ------------------------ | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Antarctic hair grass** | *Deschampsia antarctica* | A hardy perennial grass; tolerates freezing and desiccation |
| **Antarctic pearlwort** | *Colobanthus quitensis* | A cushion-forming flowering plant; resembles a moss or sedum |

So it'll cook up fake latin names for species which don't exist.

>>24523086 (OP)
None of those are easy, they just have a lower bar.

I feel like writing really is the best benchmark for LLM performance. It's just hard to rate it the way benchmarks are usually done. I guess you could give /aicg/ or other ERP fags free access to all models and see which one they gravitate to.

For generating porn slop Sonnet is more than good enough, but it's going to be a long while before we get anything capable of writing even a good short story on its own.
A big problem is the assistant training. They're just too eager to please. If you tell it to correct anything they flipflop on the issue completely. Want a bit less dialogue? Here, I've removed all dialogue for you master, are you happy?
It's all so tiresome. But the potential is there. And it's fun to fuck around with. Logically it can get a lot of story stuff right now, even if you go niche content. The 6 person fantasy adventure I'm doing right now has it sometimes lose track of things a bit, for example some character suddenly knew anothers secret. And it's just too locked in on tropes and cliche. But compared to two years ago it's come a long long way.

As for the hype I feel like this may be like the dotcom bubble. An impressive new technology that can and will change the world, but all the "business" people get in way too hard way too early and promising everyone the moon. It's just not there yet.

>>24525001
I never used blockchain, VR, or 3d printing in more than once or twice.

Every single person at my office, including myself, the stacys who sit to either side of me, and my ancient Brooklyn Jewish boss who types on the keyboard with two fully extended index fingers while squinting - his face 2 inches from the screen and complaining throughout, uses AI at least once an hour.

>>24525198
>language is the best benchmark for large language models
ChatGPT, is that you?

>>24525204
If you are not going to use AI, could you at least get a book on grammar? Even retard prescription will do.

>>24525214
Shitposting website thoughbeitever.

>>24525219
>I suck on purpose
OK.

>>24525209
Sounds stupid I guess, but if you look at the what marketing is doing it feels like language is the last thing they think about. All the benchmarks they usually tout, they don't care about language.
And I hope my writing doesn't pick up too many 'isms with how much I use that shit every day.

>>24523961
>wordplay
Literature is much more than just wordplay. I also did not say "more complex."

>I was going to write a serious reply but I decided not to engage with you further actually because I sense lowliness of humanity in you and I think my effort is guaranteed to be wasted.
Sure.

>>24525226
AI is a business, why would they care about anything other than the marketing? Even in the that list, AI has yet to produce anything of worth.

>>24525223
(you)

>>24525360
nta but that post is terrible and not ESL sort of terrible, plain old EFL, ignorant, rotting your brain out on the internet while getting AI to pickup your slack sort of terrible.

>>24525381
You are that anon, but what about it is terrible? Where is there any zoomer/4chan slang? Why do you suspect AI use in a post you claim to be a grammatical mess?

None of your points make sense.

>>24525384
For starters, "in more than once or twice." and that em-dash. I am not that anon but feel free to fixate on that if it makes you feel better about being a retard.

>>24525387
I don't understand, which dash is it that you havee a problem with?

>>24525390
>which
There is only one.

>>24523897
If you can't tell what's AI writing, then maybe writing is not for you

>>24525395
Yeah an its used perfectly correctly? What is your point? Are you just making things up now?

>>24525400
It is the standard "em-dash is like a semicolon but isn't a semicolon use so use it when a semicolon doesn't work" sort of usage but used like the parenthesis usage while being left unclosed as per semicolon usage. It would be ok but not good usage had the final comma also been an em-dash. That post does a great job of highlighting the faults in viewing the em-dash from the standpoint of semicolon like and parenthesis like usage which are failed analogies by people who don't understand how em-dashes works.

>>24525413
Okay well I asked GPT and it said it was perfectly acceptable and actually was well used - so I think you're worng.

>>24525416
Which was that anon's point.

>math: easy
I asked chatgpt to give me to add up a column for me the other day and it kept giving me a different (wrong) answer every time
good for formatting emails to paste into excel though

>>24525417
what was?

>>24523115
This. OP just can't tell the difference because of his own limitations.
Translation and summarization is what it's best for IMO, and simple tasks in all above-mentioned areas.

>>24525635
I guess it was actually my point and not that anon's, really thought he said something about you rotting your brain with AI but that was apparently all me. Prescription with its lackadaisical attitude regarding semantics completely fails at explaining em-dash usage and how it differs from semicolons and parenthesis because how it differs is in the semantics. Em-dash raises and lowers the narrative/speaking voice; first em-dash raises the voice and removes what follows from the narrative, it is something unrelated but important and most simply could be seen as the narrator's/speakers thoughts, a second em-dash or new sentence lowers the voice from the narrator's thoughts back to the narrative. A sentence which starts with an em-dash lowers the voice to a character, dialogue.

Also, if you must use hyphens in place of em-dashes then use a double hyphen.