u/simianpower

What do you recommend? I'm utterly sick of Claude's bullshit, and Gemini on Google is nerfed to the point of being moronic. What I need is something that can and will search the web when it doesn't know something rather than make up "plausible" trash, can keep track both of what it's learned (character details, world knowledge, etc) and story-writing rules, and doesn't turn every character into bland, generic-protagonists who all sound, act, and think the same way. If frontier models can't do any of that, what can? I've been trying this for about a month now and I'm getting to the point that I really understand why most "AI-assisted" stories are such garbage.

Given that AI seems to be getting WORSE at writing over time rather than better, I actively avoid stories that say "AI assisted" because I can't unsee all of the garbage that invests them. Most authors don't bother rewriting or fixing what AI gives them. They just copy/past/continue. Yes, there are obviously authors out there who care more, but there's no way of distinguishing them from the 90+% of hacks who don't.

I ended up getting mashed up sentences and word substitutions that made no real sense.

I've noticed it, too. I'll specifically tell it "Character X says 'something'" and when Claude regurgitates it, that 'something' is not what I told it. It will have Claude's usual filler words shoved in everywhere possible (actually, genuinely, truly, purposefully, etc), be divided up into different sentences with filler ones in between ("Character X lets that sit with them for a moment before delivering the heavier line,"), soften the tone to feel more bland and generic such that no character can have their own voice or personality, and in general feel more like Claude being Claude than what I wanted the character to sound like. It's infuriating. I thought I could use this as a co-writing tool, but between this and all of its other flaws I no longer think that's possible.

So, basically you're saying that they're slow-roll lobotomizing Claude as well, but still charging full price for it. Wonderful. Is it just Sonnet 5 that has this issue, or all the available models? Because this seems like something designed in, some sort of cost-saving nickle-and-dime measure like turning the knobs of "how frequently will it search" and "how much will it keep" to "do it as cheaply as possible and hope nobody notices". If it was more capable before and is becoming less so, that's on purpose.

Yeah, I just heard about this on NPR this afternoon and the story went something like "Local kid killed his family, and he did searches on ChatGPT about it beforehand." Like, who the fuck cares what his search history held? Or his AI interactions? PEOPLE must've seen that he was off. News stories are trying to tie "murders use AI" together by mentioning it whenever they can, but you could just as well say "bad authors use AI" by mentioning the plot of the latest movie and "but the director and producers are all active on XYZ AI platform" as if it's a causal relationship. Framing matters, and they're doing this on purpose.

Google it yourself, man. Starcraft 2 is still huge worldwide. But Blizzard got bought by Activision and strip-mined, as per usual, so there's little support for either 1 or 2 any more, but there are still tournaments all the time despite that. Starcraft 2 has a worldwide player base ~3.3 million from what I can find. But you're right about the original game; SC1 is about 80+% in South Korea.

Seriously? It's still one of the top 15 esports in the world.

I wish I knew. I'm not sure any of them are worthwhile yet. They're also so, SO STUPID! They can't "remember" anything for long, sometimes even within a single response. I tend to ask things like "What did you do wrong here" or "Why does this not make sense" and they can get it maybe one in five times.

In the case of Google, which is using an utterly crippled version of Gemini 3, I don't trust anything it says. Ever. Even after I ask it "how much of this is true?" and it says "almost none of it, but here's the truth" I have to keep asking over and over and over and finally get "OK, this is directly from website XYZ". Isn't that what a search engine should provide THE FIRST TIME? Instead of making up random crap and confidently lying?

I found, in a 60k word document, the word "actually" around 600 times. So, about 1% of all words used were the same meaningless filler. There were others that were repeated over a hundred times, too, and I'm not talking about words like "the" or "and" that are necessary. Filler words or phrases, like "genuinely" or "properly" or "sit with it" that don't add any semantic content but sure do fill a page. Entire paragraphs of text Claude writes can be chopped down to a sentence or two without losing content, and those sentences can each lose half their words. Claude is NOT a good writer, nor is Gemini. They just fill pages with empty and repetitive garbage.

And now that I've seen that in detail, I can't unsee it when I read stories online. So many of them have the same exact junk wording, like someone told one of those or similar AIs to write for them and didn't even bother to chop out the cruft before slapping their name on it and putting it online like it's their own masterpiece.

What part of "I couldn't give a fuck what the author thinks or says; what's on the page is what matters" did you not understand? Show me the specific words that you fail to grasp.

I. Don't. Care. What. Anyone. Writes. Outside. The. Actual. CYOA.

There, that cover it? No? Here's the thing: if you can't get across your purpose in what you write, it doesn't matter what your purpose is. What you write is what matters, because that's what people will see. Author's notes, WoG, interviews about the material, explanations on external sources, none of that matters. If it's not on the page, it's vapor. And what's on the page is self-contradictory.

I'd also like to point out that I hashed this out with you, repeatedly, on multiple comment threads, A MONTH AGO, so why are you suddenly diving back in?

There's no such thing as a watermark in text, is there? I mean... it's text! It's like, UTF-8, which doesn't have provisions for watermarks. And if you're copying it into Notepad or something, where would anything they "wove in" go? Or is the "watermark" just how frequently Claude re-uses the same words and phrases over and over?

That's all complete bullshit that you just made up because you want to sound smart, but it doesn't fit Stargate lore at all. Next time spend 30 seconds on Google or the wiki so that you don't look stupid instead.

In the Stargate universe, inertial dampeners work by manipulating gravity fields on a molecular level.When a ship undergoes extreme acceleration, the dampener system projects a localized artificial gravity field inside the ship. This field accelerates every single molecule of the crew and cargo at the exact same rate as the ship's hull.Because everything moves simultaneously, there is no relative force pushing the crew backward, preventing spaceflight from being instantly fatal. In other words, yes, your mass is accelerating, which is exactly the opposite of what you so confidently and incorrectly proclaimed.

Source: https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Inertial_dampener

Seriously, dude, you also need to look up the difference between velocity and acceleration. If you stop accelerating at 0.25c you keep going at 0.25c; you don't suddenly go to 0. That would require literally infinite deceleration, which isn't even physically possible. Source: I'm an astrophysicist who worked at M.I.T.; I know what I'm talking about here. Spend a few moments on Google. The conversation is about inertial dampeners and acceleration, and the commenter before you brought velocity into it as if taking the foot off the gas means stopping instantly. It doesn't.

You "started talking to AI" today. It's currently 8 hours since you posted this, according to the "submitted" element at the top. I'm pretty sure I first opened this tab 3 hours ago. So within something like 4-6 hours you "looked at the pile and realized we had enough material for a book." This is exactly why people say AI wrote it for you. And why people don't want to read books written by AI. Were you involved in the "writing"? Sure. You had a chat with a robot. That's not anything most people want to read. You sharted out something in 5 hours and called it a book, but it's not.

I've also "written" 40-60k words of text with an AI, but I sure as shit wouldn't want anyone else to read it. Hell, I counted the number of times the AI used the word "actually" and in 60k words it was something like 600 times. One percent of ALL THE WORDS in what I had was the same empty word that added nothing. If you just copy/paste AI text what you have at the end is just junk. And what I did was with an expensive premier model, one of the best out there. Anything "lesser" will probably be even more repetitive and empty, or make tons of mistakes in continuity or correctness.

If the acceleration is gated on the dampers working, it would be technically faster than "instantly" since there would literally be no acceleration if the damper twitched. Hence the microburst idea. The engines would effectively be sputtering, but so fast that it seems to be continuous acceleration to anything but a computer and with micro- or even nanosecond cadence.

I'm pretty sure they don't survive WITH turning into paste either. :)

You need to look up the difference between velocity and acceleration.

It has zero to do with "fast" because that's velocity. If the ship tied the thrust to inertial damper sensors such that if the damper cuts out or even twitches, the thrust dies INSTANTLY until someone verifies damper integrity, that would stop their ACCELERATION but their actual speed doesn't matter unless something's in front of them. There's definitely ways to do that, such as sequenced micro-bursts of thrust that each first go through the damper sensors and if the latter fails, the microbursts stop.

No, it wouldn't. Nothing close to that. Exaggeration is one thing but that's just ridiculous.

She never dated either of them, though. Narim was horndogging on her from moment one, but she only ever saw him a few times and never romantically, and Martouf was the former lover of her briefly-held symbiote's prior host. And that's all.

It's also a hard thing to believe that this guy was an SG team lead who had gone rogue months or years ago when the entire idea of SG teams started in the first few episodes of the show and this was episode six. When exactly did he have time for all of that?

I can't tell you the number of hours I wasted trying to enact some of the things it confidently hallucinated as truth. Fixing my fire alarm situation, dealing with Facebook's AI randomly locking my account, and on and on, it lied and lied and lied and I thought it was actual advice. Just asking it every response or two "how much of that was true and how much did you just make up" made all the difference. Which, honestly, is APPALLING since it's attached to a search engine! It used to be that you looked for something on Google, and either you found it or you didn't. Now you get page after page of paid links and MAYBE on page 5 you find what you're looking for, or you deal with an AI that lies as a habit. Google absolutely SUCKS now.

FYI, Google's AI tells you what it thinks you wants to hear, and if it can't guess that it just makes something up. I've found that about 80% of what it says are outright lies. And I know this because my latest habit is asking it every response or two "how much of that is true" and it flat-out admits that most of what it just said was lies. So... I don't think you can really count anything it says as valuable or true unless you ask it to validate its own work, and then sometimes a second time.

Vala and McKay.

Anise is another on the list.