using AI to help type reviews for this site

[puntingking]

Your thoughts? 


I think it could be a great tool that members could/should use to type up neater, tidier reviews that says everything they want the review to say but in a more orderly manner, better English (albeit most likely american English).


How it works is a member type up their experience of a recent sp, It doesn't need to be orderly and it can even be just notes about their experience and the Ai gets to work and within the next few seconds, the AI (whether it is Google, Chatgtp, etc) it then gives you your review which will only need minimal edits afterwards and before posting on here.

So after you type notes into the AI, The Ai delivers you a review which you can then copy and paste across to this site, a brief few minutes to read the review and to edit it slightly as AI may misrepresent some of your notes or that some of the review may need a little further information in it to complete it and then it is finish and is then able to post on here.


My last review only took me no more than five minutes from start to finish to post. Normally, my reviews take around 15 to 20 minutes to type up. 

[daviemac]

Your thoughts? 

Members are free to post their reviews in the style that best suits them, without interference from anyone else.

As long as the review contains the relevant information and is factual all's good. They don't need to be anything else just because that's what you would like to see.

[puntingking]

The point of the post is to say using AI can be useful to use when typing up reviews on here.
I am most likely a late arriver to AI but it can be incredibly useful.

[daviemac]

The point of the post is to say using AI can be useful to use when typing up reviews on here.
I am most likely a late arriver to AI but it can be incredibly useful.

You are trying to tell members how they should word and post their reviews and that is totally out of order, it has nothing to do with you.

Apart from anything else reviews should be worded by the poster in a way that describes how they found the experience not how AI thinks it should be.

There is not and never will be a set format for reviews and anything that looks like AI generated gets reported for the mods to look at and can run the risk of being removed.

[Ghost89]

I don’t like AI at all but I think the intention was to maybe assist and encourage the non contributing people to submit reviews as opposed to telling people how to submit them.

[daviemac]

I don’t like AI at all but I think the intention was to maybe assist and encourage the non contributing people to submit reviews as opposed to telling people how to submit them.

There's plenty of guides on how to post reviews, including a sticky in the Important Forum Information News and Updates section and the mods give advice where needed.

What we don't want is a forum full of what could be seen as fake AI generated threads or posts. At present if it looks AI generated it get's reported, especially if it's from a new reviewer.


Hidden Image/Members Only

[Punting2022]

Chat gpt is ok. Will blank naughty words. People can get in a hissy fit here over grammer. So use whatever is best.

[daviemac]

I should add that the OP's reviews are, shall we say, not the shortest, which is fine that's how he writes, but any new member looking at them and thinking all reviews have to be like that is very much mistaken.

There's long reviews like the OP's and short reviews all are equally valuable. There's a basic level of information required in a review, as long as that's there the level of embellishment is up to the individual.

Would a short but acceptable review need AI assistance? 

[Ghost89]

There's plenty of guides on how to post reviews, including a sticky in the Important Forum Information News and Updates section and the mods give advice where needed.

What we don't want is a forum full of what could be seen as fake AI generated threads or posts. At present if it looks AI generated it get's reported, especially if it's from a new reviewer.


Hidden Image/Members Only

I agree with that. I just see what the OP was intending to mean that was all.

[jseop109]

Far be it from me to tell people how to write reviews - they can do it however they like - but I can't help thinking that if everyone did it, it might lead to a uniformity of style, which could be a bit boring.

[Bunbury]

Chat gpt is ok. Will blank naughty words. People can get in a hissy fit here over grammer. So use whatever is best.

Hissy fit here: it’s grammar not grammer

[shagmore]

people are relying on AI far to much, i am in the tech business and do not trust it one bit, I never use it and won't, let alone let it write ups  review of an encounter I have had.

[Paul9144]

Apart from anything else reviews should be worded by the poster in a way that describes how they found the experience not how AI thinks it should be.

There is not and never will be a set format for reviews and anything that looks like AI generated gets reported for the mods to look at and can run the risk of being removed.

I agree as we'd end up having repeated phrases and robotic sentences in many reviews - It's an absolute no.

Don't get me wrong, I want see the website progress, thrive and succeed in all areas with things like the recently added mobile version is brilliant But, AI tools can't/won't be able to write authentic & accurate reviews of our experiences.

There's plenty of guides on how to post reviews, including a sticky in the Important Forum Information News and Updates section and the mods give advice where needed.

What we don't want is a forum full of what could be seen as fake AI generated threads or posts. At present if it looks AI generated it get's reported, especially if it's from a new reviewer.

Hidden Image/Members Only

Exactly, this relevantly falls in line with my first reply to your quoted comment above.

The reviewing guide (https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=422371.0#new) is very simple to read and understand.

If it's not broken, don't fix it

[PilotMan]

I like the fact that we have a wide range of review styles. Kind of like books; there are many authors, with lots of different styles, variety is the spice of life, just like punting.

I see where the OP is coming from, Ai could help some members to easily write reviews, whereas they may not bother otherwise. However, I wouldn't want to read review after review that bore hallmarks of similarity, which might happen with Ai.

Some reviews are very long with tons of details (often waffling), whilst others are much more succinct, but equally informative. I would most likely read a short review, even if it wasn't a girl I had an interest in. I usually skip read longer reviews, only reading them in full (perhaps at a later date) if there's a girl I'm seriously considering punting.

In summary, Ai is a no from me.

Addendum.

Would Ai be able to write a book if you gave it the characters, length, location, general premise of the story etc., maybe even "write in the style of xx author"?

PilotMan opens Claude....minutes later.....

Visit your local bookstore for the new PilotMan SP review novel 😀

[scutty brown]

In my view the majority of obvious AI reviews I've seen are written in a non natural style using phraseology and grammar which no sane person would consider employing. Most have gone beyond the style required for a review and dropped into biased hagiography.
Whatever the site view of AI use may be, I'll continue to regard with suspicion any reviews written using it.

[chuck_88]

Fuck AI

I, for one, do not welcome our new AI overlords

[puntingking]

people are relying on AI far to much, i am in the tech business and do not trust it one bit, I never use it and won't, let alone let it write ups  review of an encounter I have had.

I do get your sentiment here 

[puntingking]

AI is by all means perfect. As I only used it for my last review and found out that it did leave some bits of information out that I typed into the AI which I wanted the review to say.
The review would have been much longer and more informative than it is now. I guess AI just gets to the point and in doing so it can miss out on some information that you want said in the review.


You will be pleased to know (well most of you would be) that I properly will not use AI in my next and any future reviews that I post on here, as I want my review to be perfect to help as many others members decide if they want to see a sp based on my forthcomings reviews. 

[puntingking]

I should add that the OP's reviews are, shall we say, not the shortest, which is fine that's how he writes, but any new member looking at them and thinking all reviews have to be like that is very much mistaken.

There's long reviews like the OP's and short reviews all are equally valuable. There's a basic level of information required in a review, as long as that's there the level of embellishment is up to the individual.

Would a short but acceptable review need AI assistance? 

I get this.


I do enjoy making my reviews quite long and quite detailed as much as I can because I want to help as many members as I can in helping them out in deciding if my review of a sp can discourage them or encourage them in seeking out the same sp as I did.

I take your point that any reviews that are posted are equally as valuable to this site providing that the review have basic information in it. 

[Pleasure4ever]

I my opinion AI in its current Privacy or rather NO Privacy mode is bloody dangerous.
It’s used for profiling you even if you have a separate smartphones for punting.

I share the opinion that the various styles of punters writing make this site less boring.
With AI tools you tend to get a clinical version that might omit some important quirks of the punt!

I’m not even going to go into some recent faked posts by a punter who copied and pasted previous punters reviews. With AI this could start to become difficult to spot if edited well to hide as a genuine review of a SP.

Let’s keep it human and full of grammar mistakes and TYPO.
After all punting with a real human being beats wanking in front of a screen every time, and the review should reflect that!

[daviemac]

I get this.


I do enjoy making my reviews quite long and quite detailed as much as I can because I want to help as many members as I can in helping them out in deciding if my review of a sp can discourage them or encourage them in seeking out the same sp as I did.

I take your point that any reviews that are posted are equally as valuable to this site providing that the review have basic information in it. 

A lot of people find reviews such as your's too long to read as they contain an awful lot of unnecessary information, I personally prefer brief and directly to the point reviews but I wouldn't dream of telling you to change the way you post nor would I start a thread telling people to only post shorter reviews or what format they should be.

There are rules on what has to be in a review as well as what can't be included, there are guides in the punting wiki and in the announcement section at the top of the main page, also the mods are always here to help, if anyone has a question about anything to do with this site they can post it in a thread or in a post report and they will get an official answer.

What we don't want is members thinking they have to post in a certain style or format. As long as the required information is included how it is put over is irrelevant, though it is far better NOT to use AI.

A few years ago someone suggested producing a standard review form that could be filled in section by section, it was dismissed out of hand, that is not the way this site should be, freedom of expression is the only way.

BTW those that count on here don't give a shit if there are grammatical errors or spelling mistakes and we will pull people up for making an issue of it.

[Fuzzyduck]

Hissy fit here: it’s grammar not grammer

Stop being such a pendant. 

Up to the punter if he wants to use AI but, to me, it shows an ignorance of the limitations of what AI can currently do. You'd also have to feed it some of your previous reviews to try match your style. I fear for when we start seeing masses of fake reviews that are AI generated and harder to spot.

It's also naive to think that using AI to generate reviews would mean more non-reviewing punters would start posting. Why? If they can be bothered to write notes to feed an AI engine, they can spend 5-10 minutes doing a review. Unless they were going to industrialise it.

As DM said, a review doesn't have to be long at all. A collection of notes in bullet point style is better than nothing if it contains the basic requirements. I will only bother reading a long one if I enjoy the narrative style, e.g. Heph writes in a very engaging way IMO. That would be lost within AI at the moment.

[FLYING BLUE]

Stop being such a pendant. 

 

PS - I have absolutely zero interest in Ai - No matter where

[PilotMan]

PS - I have absolutely zero interest in Ai - No matter where

There are, and will be, lots of things going on in the world that Ai is going to change. But it will happen much faster and be more pervasive than the changes brought by the industrial revolution.

You can have zero "interest" in it, but it is going to affect you, for better or worse, like it or not.

[90125]

PS - I have absolutely zero interest in Ai - No matter where

Take it you never use a Search Engine then as all now have AI embedded into how they function.

[puntingking]

A lot of people find reviews such as your's too long to read as they contain an awful lot of unnecessary information, I personally prefer brief and directly to the point reviews but I wouldn't dream of telling you to change the way you post nor would I start a thread telling people to only post shorter reviews or what format they should be.

There are rules on what has to be in a review as well as what can't be included, there are guides in the punting wiki and in the announcement section at the top of the main page, also the mods are always here to help, if anyone has a question about anything to do with this site they can post it in a thread or in a post report and they will get an official answer.

What we don't want is members thinking they have to post in a certain style or format. As long as the required information is included how it is put over is irrelevant, though it is far better NOT to use AI.

A few years ago someone suggested producing a standard review form that could be filled in section by section, it was dismissed out of hand, that is not the way this site should be, freedom of expression is the only way.

BTW those that count on here don't give a shit if there are grammatical errors or spelling mistakes and we will pull people up for making an issue of it.

ok 

[scutty brown]

Take it you never use a Search Engine then as all now have AI embedded into how they function.

A retrograde step in my opinion.
I'd sooner see a list of results which I can read and analyse myself rather than a precis prepared by a selective AI working according to it's programmers biases. Anyone else noticed that since the introduction of AI into search engines it has become virtually impossible to employ reverse image search usefully in our hobby because of the censorship instructions  now inherent in the search routines? How long before textual searches become similarly neutered? It maybe they already are but we are not aware.

[GreyDave]

In my view the majority of obvious AI reviews I've seen are written in a non natural style using phraseology and grammar which no sane person would consider employing. Most have gone beyond the style required for a review and dropped into biased hagiography.
Whatever the site view of AI use may be, I'll continue to regard with suspicion any reviews written using it.

+ Me    I try and relive the punt in my head*** as I type and I couldn’t care less about spelling or grammar as I am typing as quick as I can often in the office where somebody could look over my shoulder and ask ??? I wont critique others but maybe question when they`ve spent an extraordinary amount on a fantasy , I and a few of the lads on here are looking for VFM fun not to have an expensive hotel meal trip in car and possibly ( I feel that is more sugar daddy/ courtesan  stuff ) a shag which is all ways roughly similar 

*** I really shouldn’t of said that as the last punt was a flop for me not the girls fault but mine    Mind you I do find the red line thing helpful correcting my spelling wish id had that at school

[puntingking]

As mentioned already, I will not use AI in my next review as it does ruin the authenticity of the review.
My recent review (which is the only review I have used AI for) had left information out of it which I wanted in but AI didn't feel it was important enough to be a part of the review.

I have changed my thoughts on using AI now. 

[puntingking]

It turns out that AI is not all good - External Link/Members Only 

[stampjones]

I'm not 100% sure what the point of using Ai is. Unless you want it to make shit up you have to tell it all the facts that are specific to your meet that you want to include in the review so it's not going to save much time. Sure maybe the grammar would be more correct but personally I like all the different styles people have here. It would be pretty boring if every review sounded exactly the same.

[puntingking]

I'm not 100% sure what the point of using Ai is. Unless you want it to make shit up you have to tell it all the facts that are specific to your meet that you want to include in the review so it's not going to save much time. Sure maybe the grammar would be more correct but personally I like all the different styles people have here. It would be pretty boring if every review sounded exactly the same.

I agree with you now. With AI it sounds robotic and it can feel so not human-like in its tone.
We live and learn. I read somewhere that people use AI for a whole range of reasons and I thought it may be good here but it turns out that I was apparently wrong.

But AI can speed things up though, which is why I thought it could be useful in typing reviews using the technology.

 

I will stick to my usual style of typing up reviews, not only is it better but I think a lot of members appreciate my usual reviews anyhow without the need of using AI.

[thatsaint]

Take it you never use a Search Engine then as all now have AI embedded into how they function.

not ALL search engines, there are still options out there for those concerned with privacy

but running your review through Gemini would be a terrible idea. What you give Gemini, is information that will be forever connected to your google account. So if you want to be anonymous with your punting, which most of us do, using an AI that saves everything you tell it to your profile, is a bad idea.

I asked Claude something ages ago about a situation I had with an escort, and (this was before the private window feature) and from the outset said I don't want this discussion saved to my profile and Claude assured me it wouldn't be, as it didn't save conversations that are deleted. Then fast forward a few months and Claude gave me a snapshot of the profile it had for me, based on our conversations and mentioned the very thing i had deleted that I said I didn't want saving to memory!! Imagine that had popped up in front of someone! Everything you tell AI is logged, remembered and used for training etc. It's in their T&Cs, terrible idea to put your punting history into it!

[paul_tall_]

I guess AI just gets to the point and in doing so it can miss out on some information that you want said in the review.

Missing out items you want included is down to how you write the prompt really.
Prompt engineering ie steering the AI to do what you want is complex but achievable with practice
To get your own style you can quite easily upload previous reviews of your own as part of the prompt and ask it to mimic your style , layout the same , don’t lose information, don’t repeat and don’t repeat and rephrase etc etc
Whether you want the AI companies to know all this about you I’m not sure

[midspunter]

Personally, I like that reviews give you a flavour of the person writing. AI flattens that to the point everyone reads the same.

[FLYING BLUE]

Take it you never use a Search Engine then as all now have AI embedded into how they function.

I didn't say that I do not use AI (by choice or not) - What I said is that I have Zero interest in it.

[puntingking]

Missing out items you want included is down to how you write the prompt really.
Prompt engineering ie steering the AI to do what you want is complex but achievable with practice
To get your own style you can quite easily upload previous reviews of your own as part of the prompt and ask it to mimic your style , layout the same , don’t lose information, don’t repeat and don’t repeat and rephrase etc etc
Whether you want the AI companies to know all this about you I’m not sure

It puzzles me why some punters have a problem with the AI knowing their punters experiences.
I mean AI is not a human and even if AI was a human, don't you know sex work is legal in the UK so I am not sure why it would bother some members that AI may know their reviews information 

Your first point intrigued me as I never know that they could copy someone style of reviews which would help somewhat 
AI is a bit like VAR in football. We think it solves the issues but it turns out once the piece of technogy have come about it turns out it still don't solve a thing.

[PilotMan]

I am not sure why it would bother some members that AI may know their reviews information 

Ai tends to build up a profile of you and remembers things, even when you ask it not to.

So someone else having access to your PC or Ai engine may find out things you wouldn't otherwise share 

[puntingking]

Ai tends to build up a profile of you and remembers things, even when you ask it not to.

So someone else having access to your PC or Ai engine may find out things you wouldn't otherwise share 

ok 

[Ivor Hunch]

It puzzles me why some punters have a problem with the AI knowing their punters experiences.
I mean AI is not a human and even if AI was a human, don't you know sex work is legal in the UK so I am not sure why it would bother some members that AI may know their reviews information 

Your first point intrigued me as I never know that they could copy someone style of reviews which would help somewhat 
AI is a bit like VAR in football. We think it solves the issues but it turns out once the piece of technogy have come about it turns out it still don't solve a thing.

"Sex work is legal in the UK" from the punter's perspective is a misconception/ dangerous over-simplification.

Did you know, for example, that it is a strict liability offence for a punter (person A) to pay someone (person B) for sexual services if someone (such as a pimp or trafficker- person C) has engaged in "exploitative" behaviour likely to make person B provide the sexual service?

See Sexual Offences Act 2003 s53A.  External Link/Members Only

It is irrelevant that the punter (A) has no knowledge of the pimp's (C's) behaviour.   Ignorance is no defence.

Given the scope for argument that an SP is being "exploited" by someone, there is a real risk of illegality in many many sexual encounters.

NOW, you might say that anyone posting a review at all is exposing themselves to risk of discovery (or even just booking through AW or any other website) - but, given the power or AI engines, you might well think that sharing info on punts with an AI engine  is an additional magnitude of risk.

Just say, for example, that a government were to say to Tech-  we will ban your AI engines unless you programme a new asimov rule-  "reveal to the government any crime that you think has been committed"

sleep tight, my chums.

[puntingking]

"Sex work is legal in the UK" from the punter's perspective is a misconception/ dangerous over-simplification.

Did you know, for example, that it is a strict liability offence for a punter (person A) to pay someone (person B) for sexual services if someone (such as a pimp or trafficker- person C) has engaged in "exploitative" behaviour likely to make person B provide the sexual service?

See Sexual Offences Act 2003 s53A.  External Link/Members Only

It is irrelevant that the punter (A) has no knowledge of the pimp's (C's) behaviour.   Ignorance is no defence.

Given the scope for argument that an SP is being "exploited" by someone, there is a real risk of illegality in many many sexual encounters.

NOW, you might say that anyone posting a review at all is exposing themselves to risk of discovery (or even just booking through AW or any other website) - but, given the power or AI engines, you might well think that sharing info on punts with an AI engine  is an additional magnitude of risk.

Just say, for example, that a government were to say to Tech-  we will ban your AI engines unless you programme a new asimov rule-  "reveal to the government any crime that you think has been committed"

sleep tight, my chums.

If you that worried then even just simply being a member of this forum might still equal to this in your mind.

For example - the government were to say all forums info has to be shared with them in order to "spy" on punters reviews to make sure they have not seen and paid sexual services with a woman who fit the criteria you mentioned.

Sleep tight right back at you 

[stampjones]

"Sex work is legal in the UK" from the punter's perspective is a misconception/ dangerous over-simplification.

Did you know, for example, that it is a strict liability offence for a punter (person A) to pay someone (person B) for sexual services if someone (such as a pimp or trafficker- person C) has engaged in "exploitative" behaviour likely to make person B provide the sexual service?

See Sexual Offences Act 2003 s53A.  External Link/Members Only

It is irrelevant that the punter (A) has no knowledge of the pimp's (C's) behaviour.   Ignorance is no defence.

Given the scope for argument that an SP is being "exploited" by someone, there is a real risk of illegality in many many sexual encounters.

NOW, you might say that anyone posting a review at all is exposing themselves to risk of discovery (or even just booking through AW or any other website) - but, given the power or AI engines, you might well think that sharing info on punts with an AI engine  is an additional magnitude of risk.

Just say, for example, that a government were to say to Tech-  we will ban your AI engines unless you programme a new asimov rule-  "reveal to the government any crime that you think has been committed"

sleep tight, my chums.

Fortunately we're all a bunch of fantasists and actually never leave our bedrooms, right;-)

[PilotMan]

Fortunately we're all a bunch of fantasists and actually never leave our bedrooms, right;-)

Have you got access to my web cam 

[Munter84]

I'm really not a fan of AI generated text, it's instantly recognisable as such and tends to be overly descriptive waffle that dances around the point. It's just boilerplate to me, I skim past it.

I'd sooner read a genuine review written in all-caps text speak, than an AI assisted review.

[PilotMan]

I'm really not a fan of AI generated text, it's instantly recognisable as such and tends to be overly descriptive waffle that dances around the point. It's just boilerplate to me, I skim past it.

I'd sooner read a genuine review written in all-caps text speak, than an AI assisted review.

Basic Ai engines may well do that, but the subscription / advanced versions can write in a given style. I doubt you'd be able to tell.

[ulstersubbie]

I'd sooner read a genuine review written in all-caps text speak, than an AI assisted review.

+1

[puntingking]

I'm really not a fan of AI generated text, it's instantly recognisable as such and tends to be overly descriptive waffle that dances around the point. It's just boilerplate to me, I skim past it.

I'd sooner read a genuine review written in all-caps text speak, than an AI assisted review.

I don't agree with the AI concept now in using it to do reviews on here, however a review can still be genuine even when a member wants a little help from AI. Just saying 

[Munter84]

I don't agree with the AI concept now in using it to do reviews on here, however a review can still be genuine even when a member wants a little help from AI. Just saying 

It's a genuine review, but one where the reader wouldn't be able to easily tell what the reviewer's experience was, and what is the AI filling in the gaps.

You read a few reports by the same reviewer and you start building a picture of their style, their preferences, how easily pleased they are. With AI involved all that accumulated trust goes out of the window and it throws the believability of the account into doubt. How do I know that Positive review wasn't actually a low positive, but AI made it sound like luxury served on a silver platter? It alters the author's "voice" and makes the intended tone and nuance hard to gauge.

As a compromise why don't reviewers put "AI assisted review" in the title? (So I can avoid them!)

[hairdownthere]

I tried it for a fun

I put the basics of a recent review of mine into co-pilot and asked it to re-write it as a review, by the time I'd corrected the output to my liking, I reckon it took longer than typing out the review on here in the first place.

[Payyourwaymate]

Using AI would take away the authenticity of the posters human element of the experience from their perspective In my opinion.

It's too easy to tell what's written by AI, all the time I see AI written content in other spaces my eyes glaze over.