@[Rock Creek Werewolf](/user/show/10002145) Glad you liked it! Good point about the feet! I'll have to remember that one for next time.

@[Jules the Werewolf](/user/show/913350) What keeps you from filtering this content? Just add a tag block filter on "AI assisted" and you'll be fine. You'll never know that those stories even exist.

@[Corin](/user/show/125990) Not the one you replied to, but I don't block ai tags because occasionally it's worth it. Mostly it's not, and critical feedback is just as important as effusive praise. AI generated content is mostly bad and shallow crud. We're allowed to be offended by low/no-effort stories.

@Anonymous Of course you are. But Jules was criticizing the site admins for allowing ai content in general, and not the author. I know it's a big controversy, with images even more so than with fiction. And I fear there is no perfect solution. Tagging or banning won't work anyway, as soon people wont be able to tell human created art from ai created one. And what I definitely fear is that people are starting labeling any kind of art they don't like as "ai created", whether it actually is or not.

@[Corin](/user/show/125990) He literally said it was a mistake. The mildest possible criticism and more of an opinion. The site admins don't need protection from polite opinions, you're reacting FOR them. If you are a site admin, well, this obviously hit a sensitive point for you and perhaps you should step back and reflect. Your last point is difficult to process. On an objection to clearly labelled ai-art, you're fearful that people will self-label things as ai-art? So? If it isn't ai-art, the author has a clear conscience against accusations. If it is, and not labelled, then the author is wrong and the one at fault.

@Anonymous Hey there! It is fine to critique a story. There's a difference, though, between a critique of a story's contents versus, like... "I read your story, and my main takeaway was that your story existing on the site at all is a mistake." That's not a 'mildest possible criticism' when you tell an author that, and it's pretty disingenuous to pretend it is. 😅 More to Corin's point, it's not a true critique of the story at all. It's fundamentally phrasing the issue as with the story being a _type_ of story that the commenter finds distasteful, even though it is, in fact, allowed by site rules—so long as it's tagged appropriately. (And it is tagged appropriately.) So, like... What is an author supposed to do with that kind of comment? "Yo, I find your story fundamentally distasteful and I don't think it should even exist on this site _at all_." "Wow, thanks for the constructive feedback!" Like, no. I don't think it's on an author to deal with comments of this type, where the author is somehow put on the spot to defend site policies they neither chose nor designed. It's really not fair to the author, has nothing to do with the story they actually posted, and it skews the entire comment conversation away from the actual story, too. If someone objects to AI stories being on the site, point-blank, this would be a great conversation to have on the site forum, or via the admin inbox! It's not an appropriate conversation to have in an author's comment section, though, where they're getting pinged by e-mail for every single comment being left on their story... Which—in this case—is just site users have a conversation that isn't even really about their story. I'm also going to say... Let's stop having this conversation here. If we want to continue it, feel free to ping me at the admin inbox! Or we can make a generalized thread on the site forum, and can continue talking there. I just don't want to keep doing it in the comments section of this author's story, if that makes sense.