Grok gave my screenplay a 7.5/10. Is it lying or is my screenplay actually decent?
>>84679517Get actual humans to judge it AI can only reliably rate grammar and spelling
>>84679517it's a machine built to be a yes-man
>>84679525It talked about the plot I wrote though, accuratelyCan you read ithttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1sB5ER4srLelVn7nOumpZ6P1sxXPtAjHu/view?usp=drivesdk
You can get an AI to confirm any bias you have. It's designed to detect even the most subtle intention and confirm it
>>84679568I mean it gives me things to work on too though. It's not just a dick sucker
>>84679517You have fundamentally zero understanding of AI if you're trying to get a review of your screenplay and including "lmao" at the end of the request. It won't take you as seriously because the "lmao" changes how it approaches things entirely.
>>84679670I think it's ironic how it's actually you who has "no understanding of AI" considering it gave me an actual good review of my screenplay. It spoke back to me and reviewed the plot as if it understood it, so to speak. It actually gave good criticisms on things I could fix, and I understood what it was saying and it was actually at least a little correct. Adding lmao to the prompt doesn't do anything to the review as I asked multiple AIs, adding lmao or lol at the end sometimes and one time didn't, and they all gave a similar, taking me seriously reviews. You have no idea what you're talking about and are coming off like a massive midwit IMO.
>>84679692Your tone is part of the input AI responds to. True that it entirely depends on the temperature of the model, but it still is never a good idea to include casual phrasing when you want a serious response. A sloppy or jokey prompt can pull a looser response than a serious one. I have been working with AI since GPT-2 in 2019 and BIGGAN image generation that took 7 hours to produce a fuzzy image of a dog before you even knew what AI meant. But sure, keep throwing around the word midwit while talking conversationally to a literal tool. Retard.
AI can only tell lies. >that's not true! you just have to prompt it better!AI will tell you whatever you want it to tell you, so it's useless trying to get an opinion from it. Because in the end it will just give you whatever opinion you wanted to hear from it. >this screenplay is amazing!>no, be harsh!>right, got it. This screenplay is trash. >no, be more kind.>right, got it. This screenplay has some good points.>no, harsher than that. >right, got it. This screenplay just needs a little more refinement to be truly great. >ah, perfect. ChatGPT, you're so smart. I can always trust an objective LLM.
>>84679746But did it matter if they gave me similar reviews regardless of the lmao? No it didn't midwit. Don't try to widen the scope of muh tone of prompt matters to a more general thing. Begone with muh fundamental understanding of AI. Phaggot.
>>84679774All RLHF-trained chat models are poisoned by tone. The scope is narrower than it is wide. You don't need an AI to tell you that your screenplay is shit. You're already feeding the machine by changing things based on its feedback so why not let it write it for you at this rate, retard. I'm sure it'll do a better job.
I love SuperGrok, SuperGrok has the greatest RPs of all time!!!I just came here to say this.
>>84679796Lmfao seething bald phaggot. Lmao didn't do anything to their responses. Cope with it. You're like a know it all of AI or some shit. And you don't know shit that's what makes it so embarrassing. Go cry
>>84679827You can google verbatim what I said and you will see that what I said about you poisoning the tone is correct but you'd rather insert more emotionally charged words hoping you'll hurt me as much as the AI hurt your fragile ego by telling you that your shitty screenplay isn't going to leave your room.But go off, mate.
>>84679835I'm sure tone can fuck with the response generally speaking, but it didn't with my screenplay review. So you were wrong about that. Yet you're still coping about it. Kek. Oh no but I've been working on AI since 1688 so I'm right!!! LOL
>>84679858The only thing questionable about anything here is your mental health.
>>84679864Bro is quoting my work. Dare I say based
Your prose is clearly underaged and you should leave writing to the future version of yourself.
>>84679906Was born in the 90s my boy. >Shit is so ass Mega cope
>>84679932>my boy>mega copenobody is believing this shit man good luck with the LARP though
>>84679946I'm legit laughing my ass off at this reply lmfao
Bump for interest originality ffs
>>84679517>>84679543I'm gonna be honest champ, I have a good sense of humor and a vivid imagination, and I'm struggling to imagine real humans delivering this dialogue or how this conversation would realistically flow, your dialogue is unfiltered George Lucas tier. The "flirting"(?) back and forth between Autumn-chan and Josh-kun was legitimately painful to read. And the interaction with her mother is just awkward, sad, and pathetic, but it feels like it was meant to be funny. Picrel page in particular is fucking insane, Autumn just casually mentions being in the psych ward and everyone just immediately finds it funny and relatable, as if she just got a parking ticket. A normalfag audience would view that as a seriously dark and life-altering event. This subject matter is only really fit for some MDE-style alt comedy bit, you would not pitch this successfully to daytime granny legacy media channels.TLDR maybe you have potential, but you need to either listen to podcasts or something to study how normal people talk to each other, or go a different direction and make some dark drama shit, it seems like you're more suited for the latter.
>>84682181Yeah, I don't think you know what you're talking about, and shorts or shows or movies a lot of the time don't have "realistic dialogue", it tends to be a bit exaggerated for effect if you know what I mean. I appreciate the feedback but I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. If shows were normal people talking to each other, no one would watch them. And the fact that you think that tells me I probably shouldn't take your feedback too seriously. Anyway thanks for feedback mang. Maybe I do gotta improve.
>>84682181that file name kek
>>846795177.5/10Is the the mid. The 0-10 scale used to be calculated with an etiquette adjustment, to not come across as rude. Basically anything under or at 5/10 is a rude answer. So you use the 0/5 scale and add the 5/5 for the low end.2.5/5 + 5/5 = 7.5/10Crunchyroll cooks their ratings even more but I don't feel like talking about it. But they use a decimal system after the grace addition. Anything rated lower than 7.0/10 is absolutely trash.
>>84682626https://voca.ro/12P0FoNn7jHjSorry I got triggered
>>84682181I'm pretty sure Chris Chan wrote this screenplay because its extremely autistic
>>84682955Lmao cope phaggothttps://voca.ro/1hRB5zefnXuP
