u/ronto1138

Dis preguntas:

¿Eres capaz de decirme de que trata tu historia en una oración? olvídate de los detalles concentrate en que quieres decir, cual es tu mensaje. Una vez que respondas la pregunta anterior, ¿Identificas una historia que tenga el mismo mensaje? Tienes que ser brutalmente sincero. porque seguro ta hay alguien que contó lo mismo que tu, pero ¿qué te hace diferente?

Hace tiempo que no escribo ficción. Pero cuando lo hacía, el método que utilizaba, y creo que es el más sensato, es hacer la biografía de personaje. No solo te va a dar la voz, tambien te va a dar los elementos para saber como llego a ese punto y su propia psicología, y porqué reacciona y decide como lo hace, en donde lo coloques.

Lo otro que mencionan es tambien importante, tienes que conocer el habiente y medio donde se desenvuelve el personaje, de lo contrario será un personaje inverosímil. Aunque si estas escribiendo fantasía o ciencia ficción fuera de la tierra, tienes libertad de hacer lo que te plazca, siempre y cuando sea coherente. Ejemplo Tolkien.

MAGNIFICO. Qué buena lectura te espera. es de mis libros de cabecera. Te dejo tres cosas que a mí me sirvieron. Estoy preparando un ensayo sobre el control.

Una sobre el debate que se armó aquí entre Orwell y Huxley. Neil Postman lo resolvió muy bien en Divertirse hasta morir. Orwell temía a quienes nos ocultarían la verdad, y Huxley a quienes nos darían tanta información que la verdad se ahogaría en un mar de irrelevancia. No hay que escoger, los dos describen formas distintas de lo mismo.

Otra para más adelante. Fíjate en por qué el Partido necesita que todos los testimonios digan lo mismo. Una mentira se vuelve historia cuando nadie la contradice. Por eso el diario de Winston es tan peligroso, un solo testimonio que no coincide ya es una amenaza. Lo que mencionas de que escribir es ilegal es justo el centro del libro.

Y una finalmente, algo que casi no sale en estas listas, Nosotros de Yevgueni Zamiatin. Es de 1924 y Orwell la leyó y la reseñó antes de escribir 1984. Se nota de dónde sacó varias ideas.

Well, I am excited how it is evolving.

Si, se complicó y se nota, pero al menos nos divertimos mucho en el poco tiempo que lo hicimos.

Coincido en que el problema no es el uso sino cómo se usa. Justo hoy me pasó algo que lo ilustra. En un hilo en r/books sobre la novela Red Rising, alguien me contestó con un comentario que claramente estaba escrito con IA. Lo noté de inmediato por la forma. Aun así, tenía una idea buena, que el secreto de un personaje funcionaba como una deuda que crece con cada victoria, y le respondí por esa idea. Prefiero escuchar lo que alguien tiene que decir a descartarlo por la herramienta.

Lo que sí me parece un problema es lo que describes. Cuando el AI reemplaza al lector, como en esos reportes de lectores beta, ya nadie leyó de verdad. Y en el caso del círculo de escritores de AI recibiendo devoluciones de AI, nadie escribe, nadie lee, y todos reciben un reporte.

"Secrecy as a debt" is a great way to put it. Every success makes the lie more expensive to keep, while Thrawn never owes anyone an explanation because he already gave it. I'll keep that in mind as I read. And thanks for staying at the very start, that's exactly what I was hoping for.

Fair, indispensable was too strong. Neither Nero nor Palpatine needs them, they're both making a smart acquisition after an embarrassment, as you say. But I think the point survives in a smaller form. What gives them room isn't being indispensable, it's being valuable enough to be claimed. Darrow getting offers from several houses, Lorn's included, is exactly that leverage. He gets to choose a patron. Most people in that world never get a single offer.

Good to know Brown is an EU fan, that makes the echo less of a coincidence. And thanks for keeping it spoiler-light. You're right about the shift, it's obvious from the very first pages. The Institute's Hunger Games feel is gone and the scale is completely different. Romans in space with ship-to-ship combat sounds like exactly what I wanted from book two. I added an update to the post with where I am now, chapter 2, and how Darrow is already starting to remind me even more of Thrawn.

I'd say their loyalty is real, it's just not owed to the man in the room. Darrow is loyal to the Reds and Thrawn to the Chiss, and when you're carrying something bigger, like saving or protecting your people, loyalty to the powerful becomes a tool to get there. And to be fair, Augustus and Palpatine aren't offering a two-way street either. One collects talented young people, the other measures everyone by how useful they are. Both sides know it's a transaction.

I am enjoying every moment, I updated my post...

El hacer pasar un texto escrito por AI como humano es una estafa, si hay una advertencia previa, ya no lo es, y justo lo dices en tu respuesta.

Como ya he comentado, yo no estoy en contra del uso de AI. La uso para muchas cosas, como herramienta. Lo que me preocupa no es que se use, sino cómo se usa. La gente tiene que aprender a usarla bien. Lo que sí me parece una aberración es delegarle tu proceso mental. Eso es lo que acabará con la humanidad, no que se rebele contra nosotros.

Si a una persona a la que le cuesta comunicarse, por una discapacidad o por lo que sea, el AI le da voz, adelante. Prefiero escuchar lo que tiene que decir a que se quede callada, siempre que lo diga. como pide este sub.

Well, for those complaining, I will simply ignore them.

I am reading the series, I read all the Thrawn books when published. The connection is mine. The source text is mine.

It is no secret I use AI as a tool. As before that, I used word autocorrect, then Grammarly, now I pass my text to an LLM. Sorry but I dont see the damage. I added a disclaimer so everone is aware of this fact.

AI edited Post. My first language is not English. And I don't want to write rubbish

Totally agree on lean html, thats basically the whole point, what matters should be in the response before any script runs. Only thing I'd push back on is "no bot renders js". Googles own docs say googlebot queues pages and renders them in headless chromium, it can be delayed but it does happen (noindex or blocked pages are the exception). Applebot renders too and gemini rides on googlebot. the ones that don't seem to be the openai, anthropic and perplexity crawlers, at least per the vercel study from late 2024, and none of them really documents it so its worth checking your own logs. so optimizing for googlebot gets you gemini but not chatgpt, which is why i care about what is in the raw html

Not an agency, but I build one of the tools in this space (webainalizer), so take it as context and not a pitch. the thing I obsess over is not giving people a score they cant defend. It reads the full text and the json-ld of each page before saying something is missing, and it keeps the engines that actually search the web apart from the ones answering from memory, because mixing those two is how you get a "visibility %" that means nothing. anything it couldn't measure shows up as not measured instead of a clean pass. for shopify type stores it also checks whether the product pages carry the data AI shopping answers lean on, like gtin, price and availability. happy to answer questions here or in dm if you want to compare notes on what your store is missing.

That's a great angle I hadn't considered. If the game requires real interaction, like one player seeing the platform order and guiding the others, contribution is visible in the play itself and you barely need a metric.

Portal 2's co-op is the purest version I know. Each robot has its own pair of portals and the puzzles simply can't be solved alone. Instead of a scoreboard, the game gives you tools to communicate, like pinging a spot or counting down to jump together. Overcooked goes the same way, with only a team score and no individual stats. Though it also shows the limit. It's famous for ruining friendships, because when there's no number to blame, people blame each other out loud.

Maybe the best way to avoid gaming a measurement is designing so you don't need one, and then giving players good ways to talk instead of good ways to judge.

The older LEGO games from TT Games did it in a quieter way. Two players shared a single screen, so you physically couldn't wander off, and each character had abilities the other lacked, a Jedi for the Force, a droid for certain doors, a small character for the vents. You could technically solve everything alone by switching characters, but with two people the split happened naturally. Once the series moved to split screen and then open worlds, that closeness mostly disappeared, and so did a lot of the cooperation.

I can imagine. In education it even has its own name, Campbell's law, the more a number is used to make decisions, the more it gets corrupted. Has anything held up in classrooms, in your experience?

The Riksbank prize line made me laugh. I agree with your split. Keeping internal metrics secret for balance analysis is fine, since nobody's being judged by them. The problem starts when a hidden metric decides things players care about. And fair point on peer awards being open to social manipulation. FF14 limits it by only letting you commend people you just ran content with, which doesn't solve cliques but at least ties the award to a shared experience.

This is the most interesting answer in the thread for me. Using a counterfactual model as an offline audit of the meter, instead of as a public score, avoids the Goodhart trap entirely, because nobody plays for an audit they never see. Your baseline point reminds me of Wins Above Replacement in baseball. Comparing a player to a replacement-level one asks a much better question than comparing them to doing nothing. Thanks for the paper.

You're right, and that's a real limit. Elo-style systems need lots of games and shuffled teams. A fixed 40-person guild that almost never loses has neither, and players who always run together can't be separated statistically. That's exactly the case where I think the public ledger and peer recognition have to do the work, because the numbers can't. Your point about pairs who only play together is interesting too. Maybe at some point the honest unit of measurement is the group, not the individual.

Como el texto está marcado como IA, aprovecho para comentar por qué se nota, porque creo que sirve para todos.

Casi cada frase es la opción más esperada. El reflejo que se mueve después que uno, el «No. No podía ser.», el «¡Dios!», algo que se retuerce en el estómago. Son imágenes que hemos leído cientos de veces, y es lógico, porque un modelo de lenguaje elige la palabra más probable para continuar, y lo más probable es justo lo que ya se escribió mil veces. Funciona como esqueleto, pero no tiene nada que solo este narrador podría decir.

La idea del espejo sí da para mucho. Hace años escribí un guion que terminaba con un hombre frente al espejo de un centro comercial lleno de gente, y él ya no aparecía en el reflejo (No, no era vampiro). Lo que lo hacía funcionar no era el susto, era todo lo que llevaba a ese momento. Si alguien quisiera trabajar este texto, ahí empezaría, en lo que le pasa a este personaje antes de mirarse, y en qué ve el reflejo que él no quiere ver.

Thanks! That's exactly what I'll be watching for in Golden Son, whether hiding his agenda keeps working for him as the stakes get higher.

That's fair, and since you haven't read Thrawn you probably don't know much about him, so let me add some context. Thrawn is known for exactly what you describe in Darrow. He studies the art of each culture he faces to understand how its people think, then adapts and manipulates accordingly. He rarely wins by force, he wins by reading people.

That's why the last chapter made me think of him. Not a specific scene so much as the character. Darrow kneeling to Augustus while reading him and adapting felt like something Thrawn would do. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they just share that way of moving through power that isn't theirs.

And your point about their goals is a good one. Thrawn's partly line up with the Emperor's, and Darrow's are the opposite of Nero's, which probably shapes how much each one can show.