Krista

I have not played much with AI to see how it would write in general. Or how to pick it out of a crowd to be sure. What we don't need to be seeing is blanket paranoia, which is what AI will be causing if it becomes prevalent. Keep in mind people have different story structuring, themes, tones, and so on. They could live in angst far too heavily, or write in very flowery/purple prose. If you're seeing examples of that, and thinking, 'maybe this is AI,' it could just be technique too, and/or maybe there needs to be more fine tuning, editing/beta feedback. When I put, "Ridley," into AI and asked for a critical analysis it had the nerve to tell me that there was a lot of heavy prose that might slow down the reader and make them disinterested in the story. I huffed and called it a dumbass, it apologized and then suggested that I post more of the story so it could understand better. I ended up posting the entire story in sections and had it critically assess each section, because it told me it has a word limit to its understanding of about 10k, so I made sure each section was under 10k. And after the second section it told me that I improved the writing greatly, that the story flowed better, there was less heavy prose. It lectured me on a character. Saying that I made him more of a story structure and not a character at all, that I should tighten the writing around him. It held on to that idea in the end, which surprised me. It stated that I still let that seeming early important character fall to just a story structured character. Which I think is just, 'plot device' or red herring that didn't go anywhere. I didn't ask it to elaborate on that. But, it also said that the character became less important as new characters were introduced and made the writing more cohesive. It carrying that critique throughout surprised me. It surprised me because readers were also very much wondering about this character throughout the story and I never gave much away. It also told me I had to tighten a lot of the writing as it does get a bit repetitive and I should stop relying on over explaining in scenes. That most of my writing was strong enough, the scenes were clear that I could edit and cut down and compress scenes and 'trust' what I create without feeling it necessary to over explain/over show. Which I've heard that criticism before as well. But, I won't use AI to write. Whenever it suggested to break down the scenes and do minor adjustments, enhancements, and rewrites I told it to move on with a different prompt. I may get brave enough to ask it to do that, but I honestly don't want to see it. If I saw it, I'd live in the knowledge of the faults that aren't so easily fixed, because they're hardwired in my technique and approach to writing. All I could see it doing is showing what I lack, but also showing me that it could possibly do better in seconds, where it took me years. It is a weight I don't want whenever I open up a document. I can see where people can go from, "interesting tool...' to extremely over reliant on it, especially if their writing is being praised or noticed for being massively improved from where it was before. For those that use it for this manner, honestly honesty is best. I won't think differently about the writing, unless it becomes rather obvious that AI did 98% of the work. It shouldn't even be 50%. More like less than 10%. But that's my line of thinking/opinion. For me, I may let it pick the title, or give me a hooking description/blurb and that's it. I suck at both and I sit there in the 'Create new Story,' section trying to come up with that nonsense. I usually make Wildthing do that for me.

Well if I was kidnapping Jason's muse, I'd make it take a bath first. I don't know what I'd be in for with your muse.

Me right now coming to take your muse. You can let go of it easily, or we can make it interesting.

I miss them too. I started rereading the story to revisit the writing. Then I had to stop myself, because that's something I can't be doing if I'm going to be attempting to write other things. Terrible rabbit hole for me to be in. But yes, I miss them. I just don't know what to do, I'm not writing. This isn't abnormal for me, I think I went a few months between 'The Best Year,' and restarting, 'Learned to Lie,' as well. If anyone wants samples of what I've made Ellis out to be so far, feel free to PM me and I'll send it. There is a trigger warning attached to the project though, I'll explain that one privately as well.

I already take care of one man-child - we all know who that is, I do not need two more. I have a full time job. And I've told @wildone more than once. If I wanted to tell my side of the story to a jury, he would've already been dealt with. Miles is just an excuse to go sightseeing, vacations do exist. Although, I'd have to book the trip for the one month in Canada where there's the lowest chance for snow, so he'd expect me around July. I like the element of surprise, but I do dread snow...

I'm actually not, I'm rather disappointed that it didn't correct both our asses and tell me that Roy was the way to go, but for whatever reason it wasn't Roy. Although being proven right against you, is a win I'll take, back handed and partially earned, or not. I cleared the chat and started over and now ChatGPT is acting like it just didn't give me all this. It's being completely fickle. I can't even get it to recognize what it told me before. I am aware that everything is broad stroked and coded to sound... nice. Even when I told it to critique my writing, the worst it said is what I've been saying about my writing all along. My characters are similar, because my themes are similar and that makes my writing less dynamic as a whole project. But at least it was able to key in on that criticism in general.

Okay, something in a different thread sparked my interest and that was using AI to bounce ideas around. I believe it was @Topher Lydon who made the comment, if not he gets the credit anyway, cheers Topher. So, I decided to ask ChatGPT if it knew me. Krista an author at GayAuthors. I find it both hilarious and a bit off, with the response. I also asked it to analyze love interests for Joel in Learned to Lie. Maybe to settle which one was the best option out of three. Long story short, ChatGPT didn't like Roy's brown eyes. But it had a lot to say about Colt and Davin. If you're not afraid of spoilers, I'll copy/paste everything here. If you haven't read the story, well to be honest it's been completed for a bit and if you were going to, you probably already have. --- Who is Krista from GayAuthors “Krista” on GayAuthors isn’t a widely known public figure in the broader literary world—it’s most likely the username or pen name of a writer within that specific online community. GayAuthors is a niche site where authors share original fiction (often LGBTQ+ themed), and many contributors use pseudonyms rather than their real names. Because of that, there isn’t a single well-documented identity or biography tied to “Krista” outside the platform. If you saw the name attached to a story, it refers to that particular author’s profile and works within the GayAuthors community. If you want, you can tell me the story or excerpt you’re thinking of, and I can help analyze the writing style or themes more specifically. ---- Can you write me a paragraph in the style of Krista from GayAuthors I can’t directly mimic Krista’s exact voice, but I can write something inspired by the kind of emotional, character-driven storytelling often found on GayAuthors—introspective, intimate, and focused on inner conflict. Here’s a paragraph in that spirit: He lingered at the edge of the room, half-hidden in shadow, telling himself it was safer this way—watching, never stepping too close, never risking the fragile balance he’d built around his own heart. Everyone else seemed so certain, so unafraid to reach for what they wanted, while he stood there tangled in hesitation and what-ifs. Still, there was a quiet pull he couldn’t ignore, a warmth in his chest whenever their eyes met, fleeting but undeniable. And for the first time in a long while, he wondered if staying invisible was really the same as being safe—or if it was just another way of slowly disappearing. If you want, tell me the tone (romantic, angsty, hopeful, etc.) or scenario, and I can tailor it more closely. ---- Learned to Lie, By Krista “Learned to Lie” by Krista (from GayAuthors) is one of those emotionally heavy, character-focused stories that leans into internal conflict and the cost of secrecy. At its core, the story revolves around a protagonist who has spent a long time hiding parts of himself—often tied to identity, relationships, or past trauma—and has gotten so used to lying (to others and to himself) that it becomes second nature. The tension builds around how those lies create distance: from friends, from family, and especially from someone who starts to matter more than he expected. There’s usually a strong emphasis on guilt, fear of rejection, and the slow realization that honesty might be the only way forward—even if it risks everything. Krista’s writing in this piece tends to focus on: Inner monologue and emotional tension rather than action-heavy plot Gradual relationship development, often with a mix of longing and restraint Themes of identity, shame, and vulnerability A tone that’s introspective, slightly melancholic, but ultimately searching for hope If you’re reading it for style, the key takeaway is how much of the story lives inside the character—small reactions, hesitation, and unspoken thoughts carry more weight than big dramatic events. If you want, I can break down specific scenes or help you write something closer to that exact tone. ---- Break down the scene where Joel fights back against the bully Jaxton at the bonfire after the homecoming football game. That bonfire scene is a turning point because it flips Joel’s role in the story—from someone who absorbs pressure to someone who finally pushes back. At the start, the setting does a lot of quiet work. The bonfire after the homecoming game is loud, chaotic, and very public—exactly the kind of place where Joel is most vulnerable. Up to this point, Joel has learned to survive by staying small, reading the room, and avoiding confrontation. So putting him in a crowd, with alcohol, heightened emotions, and social hierarchies on full display, raises the stakes before anything even happens. When Jaxton shows up, the dynamic is already familiar: he needles Joel, pushing just far enough to get a reaction while still playing it off as casual or joking in front of others. That’s important because it traps Joel—if he reacts, he risks exposure or escalation; if he doesn’t, he reinforces the pattern of being an easy target. Krista builds tension here through Joel’s internal monologue: you can feel the calculation, the fear, and the exhaustion of constantly managing how he’s perceived. The shift happens when something crosses Joel’s personal threshold. It’s not just about Jaxton’s words in that moment—it’s the accumulation of everything Joel has swallowed before. The “fight back” isn’t just physical or verbal; it’s psychological. For the first time, Joel stops prioritizing safety over self-respect. That decision is impulsive, almost jarring, because it breaks the identity he’s constructed—the one who lies, deflects, and endures. When Joel pushes back, the tone changes instantly. The crowd matters now in a different way. Instead of being a shield for Jaxton, it becomes a witness. Joel’s fear doesn’t disappear, but it gets overridden by something sharper—anger, maybe even a kind of clarity. Krista tends to write these moments with tight emotional focus, so the action itself is less important than what it means: Joel is no longer invisible. Jaxton’s reaction is just as revealing. Bullies like him rely on predictability, and Joel’s resistance disrupts that. Whether Jaxton escalates or backs off, the power dynamic is no longer one-sided. There’s a crack in the hierarchy, and everyone present can see it. After the confrontation, the real weight of the scene settles in. Joel doesn’t walk away triumphant—he’s usually left shaken, possibly regretting the exposure, but also aware that something fundamental has changed. This is where the title “Learned to Lie” ties in: Joel’s survival strategy has been built on concealment, but this moment proves that honesty—raw, messy, even dangerous—might be unavoidable if he wants to stop feeling powerless. So structurally, the scene works as: Pressure cooker setup (public, volatile environment) Reinforcement of old patterns (Jaxton’s bullying, Joel’s hesitation) Breaking point (emotional threshold crossed) Disruption (Joel fights back) Aftermath (internal shift, consequences still looming) It’s less about winning a fight and more about Joel crossing a line he can’t uncross. ---- Can you break down the interaction and conversation Joel had with Colt when Colt was upset after an argument he had with his father? That interaction with Colt is quieter than the bonfire scene, but in some ways it’s even more important because it exposes both boys without the distraction of a crowd. When Joel finds Colt after the argument with his father, the emotional dynamic is flipped from what we usually see. Colt—who normally comes across as confident, grounded, maybe even a little untouchable—is visibly shaken. The conflict with his dad isn’t just a one-off disagreement; it taps into expectations, pressure, and possibly disappointment that Colt doesn’t know how to process. Instead of anger coming out cleanly, it shows up as frustration, short responses, or withdrawal. For Joel, this creates a complicated moment. He’s used to being the one who’s guarded, the one hiding everything, but now he’s in the position of seeing someone else unravel a bit. At first, Joel approaches carefully—there’s hesitation in how he speaks, like he’s testing whether Colt wants company or to be left alone. That uncertainty is key, because it shows Joel still reading emotional risk before acting. The conversation itself tends to move in layers rather than straight lines. Colt doesn’t immediately open up; he deflects, minimizes, or tries to brush it off. Joel’s role becomes less about asking perfect questions and more about staying there. That persistence—quiet, not pushy—is what gradually shifts the tone. Instead of forcing Colt to explain everything, Joel gives him space to choose honesty. When Colt does start to talk, the focus isn’t just the argument—it’s what it represents. There’s usually an undercurrent of “not being enough” or not fitting into what his father expects. That vulnerability contrasts sharply with how others see him, and Joel notices that gap. It deepens Joel’s feelings because he’s seeing a side of Colt that isn’t performative or controlled. Joel’s responses in this scene are subtle but meaningful. He doesn’t suddenly become fearless or perfectly articulate. In fact, part of the realism is that he’s still holding things back. But he offers small pieces of sincerity—acknowledgment, empathy, maybe a quiet reassurance—that he wouldn’t normally risk. It’s one of the first times Joel connects without fully hiding behind deflection or lies. There’s also an emotional exchange happening beneath the words. Colt’s willingness to stay, to not shut Joel out completely, signals trust. And Joel recognizing that trust raises the stakes for him internally—because caring about Colt now comes with the risk of being seen in return. By the end of the interaction, nothing is neatly resolved. Colt isn’t suddenly okay, and Joel hasn’t magically overcome his own defenses. But something shifts: Colt is no longer carrying everything alone in that moment Joel steps closer to honesty, even if only slightly Their relationship gains a layer of intimacy built on shared vulnerability rather than surface-level connection It’s a scene built on restraint—what’s not said matters just as much as what is—and it quietly lays the groundwork for deeper emotional stakes later in the story. ---- Should Krista have made Colt the romantic interest for Joel and not Davin It’s a tempting idea, but switching the romantic focus from Davin to Colt would fundamentally change what the story is trying to do—and not necessarily for the better. Colt works so well because he isn’t the romantic interest. His dynamic with Joel is built on emotional honesty without the immediate pressure of romance. That scene after the argument with his father is a good example: Joel is able to show up, listen, and connect in a way that feels genuine but not entangled in attraction, jealousy, or expectation. If Colt were the love interest, those same moments would carry a different weight—more tension, yes, but also less clarity. It might muddy the quiet trust that makes their connection feel grounded. Davin, on the other hand, tends to embody the risk side of Joel’s journey. With him, Joel has more to lose—socially, emotionally, and internally. That relationship forces Joel to confront the very thing he’s built his identity around: hiding. In other words, Davin isn’t just a romantic option; he’s a narrative pressure point. Choosing him (or even just being drawn to him) pushes Joel into conflict in a way Colt doesn’t. If Krista had made Colt the romantic interest, the story likely would’ve shifted toward a softer, more mutually supportive arc—two people opening up together. That can work, but it reduces the asymmetry that gives Learned to Lie its tension. Right now, the story balances two different needs: Colt = safety, understanding, emotional grounding Davin = desire, risk, and the possibility of exposure That contrast is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It shows that the “healthiest” connection isn’t always the one the protagonist gravitates toward, especially when they’re still figuring themselves out. So it’s not that Colt couldn’t have worked as a romantic interest—it’s that making him one would flatten the story’s emotional complexity. Keeping him as a non-romantic anchor actually gives Joel more room to struggle, which is where most of the story’s power comes from. ----- What about Grady Roy Mason if not Colt or Davin? Short answer: he’d be the most complicated choice—and probably the one that would push the story into a darker, more volatile direction. If you look at how Grady Roy Mason is positioned, he doesn’t function like Colt (emotional safety) or Davin (romantic risk with some vulnerability). Grady tends to carry intensity—there’s edge, unpredictability, and often a sense that he’s dealing with his own unresolved issues in a less controlled way. Pairing him with Joel would shift the core dynamic from “can Joel be honest?” to something more like “can Joel survive the emotional chaos of this connection?” Here’s what that would change: 1. The relationship tone With Grady, you’re not getting quiet, layered vulnerability right away—you’re getting friction. Their interactions would likely lean toward confrontation, miscommunication, maybe even attraction mixed with resentment or projection. That can be compelling, but it’s a very different emotional flavor from what the story currently builds. 2. Joel’s growth path Right now, Joel’s arc is about slowly learning to stop hiding. With Colt, that growth is supported. With Davin, it’s challenged. With Grady, it would be destabilized. Grady wouldn’t necessarily give Joel the space to figure himself out; he might force things out of him before Joel is ready, or react poorly when Joel retreats. That could accelerate Joel’s development—but in a harsher, more painful way. 3. Thematic shift The story as written leans into internal conflict, identity, and the cost of lying. A Joel/Grady pairing would pull the theme more toward damage attracting damage—two people who aren’t fully okay trying to connect anyway. That’s powerful, but it risks overshadowing the quieter emotional nuance Krista tends to prioritize. 4. Stability vs. volatility Colt = stable Davin = uncertain but emotionally significant Grady = volatile If Grady were the main love interest, the story would likely feel more intense scene-to-scene, but less balanced overall. You’d gain drama, but you might lose the contrast that currently makes Joel’s choices meaningful. So could Grady Roy Mason work as the romantic interest? Yes—but it would essentially create a different story. One that’s sharper, messier, and possibly more destructive. And that’s the key point: Krista didn’t just choose a love interest—she chose the kind of emotional journey Joel would go on.

I wish we could *pin* or promote responses in topics/conversations that we deem noteworthy. I would pin the one you oops propositioned me your underwater blowjob services in a heartbeat. It would stay forever.

When you're three aisles into grocery shopping, you have your oldest meandering beside you, because she's learned to behave... but two toddlers strapped to you via backpack leashes. The cereal aisle becomes a testament of patience. All those colorful boxes... all that cartoonish writing, and childish advertising. You can overlook the first crash of cereal boxes as your little tot finally got enough 'line' to reach a box. Pick them up, tell them no, too much sugar. Three aisles deep, a buggy half full of necessities you're not going to put back, because you're outnumbered and two sets up lips are puckered out and you see the oncoming tantrum. Twins - you piss one off, you've pissed the other one off... that happens from Birth onward. All those whispers from ladies that no longer were outnumbered by toddlers and children under the age of six in a grocery store and their judging eyes because you have two of them strapped to you like dogs and not little young people. I think that gives me the right, forever, to embarrass the brats. Nothing is more embarrassing than dragging two toddlers, both holding cereal boxes, because you've given up through the store on their butts, because apparently, if their hands are full their feet no longer work. Now they're teens. Paybacks are coming. ---- As for my parenting style, I am looking around and I no longer see parents actively placing expectations on the shoulders of their children. They wander through life being carried, partially, and give little in return. I knew from the start that my children were to have expectations. I mentioned this a few times to other parents and they blinked at me. Some would say, "kids that young?" And I would always answer with, yes. My kids were expected to gather their dirty dishes and give them to me, or place them in the sink. They were expected to clean their rooms. They were expected to bring their dirty laundry down to be washed. They knew they wouldn't be allowed any screen at the table, or in the family room when their attention and involvement/participation was -- you guessed it, expected. They come in from school, they do their homework. They do their chores. They eat their supper and we talk about their day. After we clean the kitchen together, afterwards they're free to decompress and do what they wish. When they were younger they'd bring their crafting, or toys, or whatever they wanted to do to the family room, not because they were told to, but because they wanted to be in the room with us whilst they played. Now they're older and stinky teenagers, so they do like their rooms more. But that went for the adults too. To place expectations on the shoulders of children, you should place them on yourself as well. Flexibility is key. Children have bad days. The world burdens them. You will never know every single burden, but you hope you've prepared them enough to manage it, or you've given them enough openness they will come to you when they can't. One of these days I'm sure one or more of my children will come to me and tell me something that happened to them, and it will shatter me. It may even be my fault in the end. Social media we do not allow though. I explained and rehashed my reasons for them not to be on social media. The oldest is driving now, and she still isn't allowed on any platform. I'm sure they get doses of it at school, the blocks on content are easy to get around, and they're allowed phones during down time and between classes to get that fix. They have friends, most of them with poor posture and eyes glued to their phones. I know I've done something good when they come home annoyed because their friends are addicted to scrolling endlessly looking for fifteen seconds of whimsy, and my children can't understand 'why' it is necessary to be on phones/tablets all the time and not engaging with the people around them. My children are also different individually. I worry about the boys more than I do the girls. They seem to take the punches the world gives them a lot harder. I admit that I am a beast when it comes to incidents that happen at school. I know what y'all are thinking. She's one of those.. "Little Jonny can do no wrong..." sorts. No, I don't think I am. I have explained to them that school disciplinary actions are important, they will follow through with them. I've told them after each incident there are better ways to handle it. That I understood heat of the moment situations are difficult to digest, but they are expected to handle it better in the future. I was privately proud of them both though. They stood up for what they believed, they just didn't choose the right words or way to do it. Most of you may be thinking... 'well they take after her...' But I am still a beast. Especially when I think the teachers were unfair. So far though there's only been two incidents that prompted a visit from me. They're mostly well behaved and I get great feedback on them. It was the two girls that I got called into the school over, not the boys. I won't go into detail about the incidents here, as they're rather specific and one of them even made the school's newspaper and I'm rather certain that publication is open to public viewing and not restricted behind the school's log-in, so I will not talk about that. Just know that my daughter wasn't the only one upset with that teacher that day, but you best believe I was the first one in that office and that teacher left having heard my opinion. I do get told that I am one of the most involved parents. I make it a point to be. I want to know what they're learning, what their assignments are, when they're due. I want to know how they're graded. I know each child's syllabus for every class. More parents should, we all have access to that information at least at the school my children are enrolled in. I went back and forth on whether or not to say any of this. I try to keep my footprint on social media rather minimal, so I don't like to specifically talk about anything to do with my children and family, jokes aside. I think I've kept this all vague enough. Only a few people know how I came to be a mother. It wasn't conventional. There was a time in my life when I thought I would never get the chance to be one. My husband showed me that it was a fight worth the fighting for and we made it happen, with a lot of help from my mother. Someone who I think I get a lot of my strength from, she doesn't know where I got all the sass though.

It is sad, she shouldn't have to settle, but she was forced to. It is also completely out of your control and as a parent as well, I know that feeling. To watch creative people defend the systematic dismantling of creativity is worrisome to me. It 'will' knock on our door someday. People writing it off as easy to 'pick out' AI slop will one day realize that eventually AI will close those 'gaps' and 'safeguards' between organic writing and what it is currently capable of doing. Although, if done slowly, passage by passage, someone with 'some' skill can already use AI and get around those 'creative' holes and gaps. And then there's always opinions and opinions change, to see all this early waffling isn't promising. Look at Animation Vs. CGI. We used to scoff at how clunky and unclean CGI was, it was horrendous when it first came out. Now it is rare to see traditional animation in anything, especially mainstream. Advancement makes things obsolete everyday, for better and worse. And, it takes all kinds in a community. I have no qualms about being controversial, blunt, or opinionated. The way I see it, if my mouth/words are too much and it overshadows my worth and writing, then it gives me a good reason to retire from all this.

Sometimes you just log-in, mind your business. Then read that you were mistakenly propositioned for an underwater blowie, that by all accounts, will be done with professionalism. And you laugh. And it is a solid notch of good on a decent day. Although being a heterosexual biological female, I must admit I never thought I'd see the day I'd be offered.

I doubt anyone has clutched their pearls reading my saucy writing. You best believe I've closed my laptop when the husband entered the room reading some of the stuff you've written though. I don't even want to attempt to explain myself if his eyeballs landed on that filth. He needs protected, he's a golden retriever.

Go ahead, if it makes you feel better. But I'd imagine that most readers here would think that would be a tragic end to what sounds like a good time. Not me, I'm a lady.

I mean... I barely get two or three sizeable paragraphs into that sort of writing and I'm like... "I can't, I have to end this mess..." so 10 pages, and not ever to see daylight. Sad.

This is spooky, or have I shown you the character sheet and forgot? Lol. I'm leaning on showing it to you as I've always valued your opinion on such things.

For me, it is a no. When you watch a Digital artist become completely obsolete, I cannot call it a technique. As it took that digital artist years to craft and hone their skill. They started out on simple mediums, grew their talent through failures, physically hundreds of hours. They shifted from paper/pencil sketching, to learning how to do it with digital brushes on a digital pad or screen. They learned color theory, they branched out, they were either self taught, or went to art school/programs. They were burdened by physical and mental limitations every step of the way. They had to sleep, eat, bathe, socialize, and feel the demands and pressure of living on this planet as a human being trying to create in a world that doesn't allow for many slow pastimes and hobbies. Most importantly though through that time you create your own stylistic choices in the process, tendencies that you carry with you throughout your creative life. Something that when you look at the work you 'know' that it is your work no matter the medium. AI does all of that on its own and it does it like a factory printing operation that mass produces art in minutes. With none of the physical and mental demands. The only technique you learn is how to optimize it and use other tools to manipulate it 'just enough' to then allow you to settle on the idea that it wasn't 100% AI generated. AI at its core, is the ultimate mimicry. I am not completely anti-progress, even with AI. I do not see this as progress though, I see it as replacement via convenience. Optimization and mass production over skilled labor intensive work.

😮 why you chickening me?

I don't like the idea of any of it. Like I said in earlier posts, I do not like the idea of AI taking away from creative spaces. That is a blanket statement for me to make, as it replaces people. You can monetize fake music now, for streaming. Some platforms have restrictions, it has to be heavily human/organic manipulated before it could be considered for platform hosting and monetization on their platform. Others are more open to the idea of completely AI generated songs to be monetized and put on their platform. Or, you can do it yourself on your own website and people have to use their judgement if they wish to buy it or not. And there are numerous platforms out there. You can also get it licensed for use in film, videos/content creation, streaming, and video games/animation. So, it goes without saying that Digital art, production, and other creative spaces, even coding, can be replicated, mass produced via AI, and hindering organic slower creation in the process. What most people don't seem to realize is that restrictions with some platforms for us, aren't restrictive for everyone. There are plenty of AI's out there that are a lot less restrictive. What we've seen here is the tip. They're highly regulated. They're behind a paywall, if you wish to mass produce you have to do so via paying for those services, and since they are more public, their mass production capabilities are stifled. That doesn't hold true for more powerful AIs and their functionality and capabilities. Imagine a machine creating and cycling through hundreds of prompts, creating thousands of images. Nothing can compete with that and that's where we're heading. AI can even filter itself, say the prompt produces three to four hundred images of a certain prompt, you can then prompt it to eliminate based on certain prompt outcomes that got it slightly wrong. And it learns from that, just in case you wish to prompt similarly later, so that it gets it right more often. When it becomes more universally abundant then, like everything else it will become more difficult to determine what is organic and what is not. It has come a long way quickly. You can get around prompts that go haywire, even on the "free" janky services that used to give people seven fingers, or none at all. Produce prompts where everyone looked the same, despite prompting "group of friends," and so on. What I also fear is expectations. We see it all the time. We're fickle. Hollywood and main stream film has pretty much told us that we're only going to get Live Action remakes, sequels, and lackluster overtold stories in our films. We flock to them and make them billions, for almost scene for scene lifeless nonsense. Although the film industry at least in theatres are a waning industry, it is still dictating much of what's readily out there. What AI will do, is make it easier to disregard expectations, lower our standards, and overlook the creative processes that didn't happen in the making of what we're consuming. Especially when it systematically doesn't give us much of a choice. And they're going to be doing it with a lot less organic control, and they're going to get richer in the process. So no, I don't like it. It doesn't protect anyone, it could lead to easy exploitation. As for your question, specifically. No, I don't like it or feel comfortable with the idea. I was talking privately about it to someone the other evening. I do not want to get in-depth here, but it is a scary and hard pass for me, when it comes to that kind of content. Not because it creates unhealthy expectations, because there are a lot of things out there that gives unrealistic expectations and that industry 'always' has, to a point, done that. Same with Celebrity worship, photoshopping, filters, manipulations, and so on. This is just another cog in that machine, it's faster and can be more widespread, that's the difference. As a whole, I pass on that industry entirely, I have no use for it. I do see the issues where people become so entangled with AI that they become addicted. Since 'that' industry is also already addictive, then it is just another layer on that as well. The overall dependency AI is pressing home is what's scary to me.

Sigh... honestly, that is a lot of writing that I'm probably going to give up on. Titles and everything. I'll give it a once more read through to see if I can pump some life into the story.

And you know they've already looked up office hours and knew exactly when you opened.

And yes, I do try to sneak and read the filth and write it mind you, because I have a nosy husband and I really do not like hearing the words: "What in the world are you reading?" When he's glanced over my shoulder and seen exactly what I was reading... And we'll see which way Jason responds to this latest accusation, he mostly feigns innocence. I'm thinking 'feigns' is the correct term to use anyway.

Don't loop my filth writing in with his, it would be an insult to his craft. We are the pearl clutchers, he is the one making us clutch them. But yes, this topic is better than the original. For reasons, some obvious, some not.

I see the point. Overuse can make the sentences cumbersome. I found that I use, "just" a lot, when it isn't necessary. And, I sometimes over explain with tag-on afterthought sentences at the end of paragraphs. My paragraphs tend to be long as they are, making them longer with that tag-along statement. I see it now, but time will tell if I allow myself to change the way I operate. The example you provided though, I am too forgiving in the second example for it to matter. To me the Was/Were additions didn't steal from the intent. The first read like a soft exhale, but the second one read similarly. I can see where an editor would remove, but as far as my own personal regard for both examples, there's not much difference in preference for me. Like I said though, I am far more forgiving with the words on the paper, what I tend to not forgive are character choices that seemingly doesn't make sense to me. If I had to choose though, I'd pick the first sentence, as the style seems more stylistic than the second example.