17 pointsby jauws5 hours ago10 comments
  • babblingfish3 hours ago
    > The surge of AI, large language models, and generated art begs fascinating questions. The industry’s progress so far is enough to force us to explore what art is and why we make it. Brandon Sanderson explores the rise of AI art, the importance of the artistic process, and why he rebels against this new technological and artistic frontier.

    What It Means To Be Human | Art in the AI Era

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3uK-_QkOo

    • babblingfish2 hours ago
      Do watch the video as it makes a compelling argument against this exact kind of thing. From a product design perspective, you're asking people to read a bunch of slop and organize it into slop piles. What's the point of that? Honestly it seems like a huge waste of everyone's time.
      • jauwsan hour ago
        I think there's interesting work to be built on this data beyond just generating and sorting slop. I didn't build this because I enjoy having people read bad fiction. I built it because existing benchmarks for creative writing are genuinely bad and often measure the wrong things. The goal isn't to ask users to read low-quality output for its own sake. It's to collect real reader-side signal for a category where automated evaluation has repeatedly failed.

        More broadly, crowdsourced data where human inputs are fundamentally diverse lets us study problems that static benchmarks can't touch. The recent "Artificial Hivemind" paper (Jiang et al., NeurIPS 2025 Best Paper) showed that LLMs exhibit striking mode collapse on open-ended tasks, both within models and across model families, and that current reward models are poorly calibrated to diverse human preferences. Fiction at scale is exactly the kind of data you need to diagnose and measure this. You can see where models converge on the same tropes, whether "creative" behavior actually persists or collapses into the same patterns, and how novelty degrades over time. That signal matters well beyond fiction, including domains like scientific research where convergence versus originality really matters.

  • bccdee3 hours ago
    I took a look at the "top-rated" story.

    1. UI is terrible. Paragraphs are extremely far apart, and most paragraphs are 1 short sentence (e.g. "I glare."). On mobile, I can only see a few words at a time, and desktop's not much better.

    2. Story is so bad that it's not even amusing.

    • jauws3 hours ago
      Thanks for letting me know - the UI issues are definitely on me (fixing asap). Feel free to generate a story or two - right now there's not enough annotations to make "top-rated" a valid moniker.
  • drusepth2 hours ago
    Hard to find the signal in the noise and know what stories I should even read to get a sense of baseline quality; partially because that's just a hard problem inherent to floods of any content, but also because the recommendation system seems to lack enough data (and also might be weighting the wrong things, e.g. the rank #1 story is also the lowest-rated...).

    A very cool idea in theory and something very hard to pull off, but I think in order to get the data you need on how readable each story is you'll need to work on presentation and recommendation so those don't distract from what you're actually testing.

    • jauwsan hour ago
      Thanks for the feedback - looking at the rest of the comments, I definitely agree it seems to be a common theme. Will do better to fix those issues so there's less noise.
  • verelo2 hours ago
    Did you skip Anthropic models? I honestly can't take this seriously if you're not looking at all the leading providers but you did look at some obscure ones.
    • jauws2 hours ago
      There's 151 models there right now (with all the latest Anthropic models), it's all randomized, it's just that there aren't enough annotations for the anthropic models to be elicited right now.
    • th0ma52 hours ago
      [dead]
  • linolevan3 hours ago
    Quick feedback: Website is basically unusable on mobile
    • jauws3 hours ago
      Ah shoot - thanks for letting me know. I'm still a noob on frontend so still learning as I go.
  • BoorishBearsan hour ago
    I have a lot of engagement data on LLMs from running a creative writing oriented consumer AI app and spending s lot of time on quality improvements and post training

    Do you have a contact email?

    • jauwsan hour ago
      Would love to chat! Here's my email: team@narrator.sh
  • pillbitsHQan hour ago
    [dead]
  • dehugger2 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • jauwsan hour ago
      If you have specific objections, I’m open to hearing them.
  • mp_mnan hour ago
    [flagged]
    • jauwsan hour ago
      Thanks for the feedback. What would you need to see to change your mind?
      • mp_mnan hour ago
        There's more quality fiction out there than you or I will ever have time to read. I don't see a purpose in flooding the world with more mediocre to unreadable fiction.
        • jauws34 minutes ago
          Realistically, I don't think anyone will be spending hours here instead of reading real fiction anytime soon (I personally wouldn't). There's just so much nuanced complexity when it comes to creative writing as a domain (long-form outputs, creativity, etc.) that coming up with better annotation methods has massive applications in other research, like in scientific discovery. "AI Wattpad" just happens to be a convenient form factor for crowdsourcing from an HCI perspective. I hope you give it a chance.
          • mp_mn6 minutes ago
            OK, so you already recognize these stories aren't something that people are going to spend time sorting through. How could you possibly then get any usable preference data out of this?
      • empath7544 minutes ago
        I am not going to argue this on the basis of LLM's suck at fiction, because even if it's true, it's not really that relevant. The problem is that what LLM's are good at is producing mediocre fiction particular to the tastes of the individual reading at. What people will keep reading is fiction that an LLM is writing because they personally asked it to write it.

        I don't want to read fiction generated from someone else's ideas. I want to read LLM fiction generated from my weird quirks and personal taste.

  • rbtprograms2 hours ago
    even for ai standards this is gigaslop
    • jauwsan hour ago
      Happy to engage if you have concrete criticisms.
      • rbtprograms33 minutes ago
        have you read any of the generated stories? if you can honestly tell me this is not complete drivel (even worse, wildly generic and poorly written) then i will consider giving real feedback but i would find that hard to believe.
        • jauws10 minutes ago
          I hope it's clear that the stories aren't being generated one-shot. I'm sure there are flaws that I haven't perfectly accounted for in the agent-loop, but because we randomize the models for each of the brainstorming -> writing -> memory parts, bad intermediate outputs will affect the final output as well. That's why unless we have above average models across all 3 stages, it might be worse than what you're used to. It's a trade-off to get more granular results. Hope you can give it a chance.