This post provides a list of Non Generative A.I. Assisted writers, artists and substack publications as well as a list of generative AI users that do not disclose their material is computer generated.
I'm fledgling on substack, but 100% I will never ever ever ever EVER use AI to even spellcheck, let alone edit, let alone write my substack. Not the articles, not the notes, not the comments. Not my podcast episode descriptions (though I can do nothing about auto-generated chapters when it gets to spotify ;-) ). As to a little intro, let's go with this:
The Scales of Truth is organically inspired, through curiosity, suspicion, and a boiling hate for the corrupt and the liars. While people have accused Tyson of being alien, never ever will they accuse him of either being AI or not being genuine. Tyson covers points of view considerably less limited by partisanship-approved talking points, with a heavy emphasis on whatever is the largest threat to humanity and freedom at the given time. Secondarily, sports points of views, and sometimes out-there "crank files" points of view (but ARE they "crank files," really?).
I also was just thinking - now I will QUOTE AI, like AI summaries on top of a search result, or the rabbit hole of the follow-up questions. Almost always because I like to then examine how it is often wrong, and how many times you have to scold it or coax it in order for it to be right. But it is only because the examination of its poor functioning is the subject of my analysis.
BTW, my latest "why the hell did you do that??!" detour of AI being wrong resulted as it typically does - instead of just helping me find a fact I knew I'd confirmed before it gave me negative characterizations on whatever subject matter it thought I was implying. Anyway, in THIS session it revealed that it is programmed to check the body of "fact check" sites, that we now all know tend to dismiss anything not mainstream and/or have worse bias than that (snopes is particularly horrible, and the AI admitted it was used). So that's where the very certain characterizations of some ideas are coming from in AI search summaries, where they're trying to debunk something you hadn't even asked yet.
(And that was the AI summaries at the top of brave search, so if they're trained to check that "fact check" slop and create their "opinions," asked for or not, by tallying up the most popular opinion, then I've zero doubt the more mainstream ones are doing it)
So that aspect really will, unfortunately, stop in their tracks the "I'll check, but then I'll believe nearly immediately... 'CUZ 'PUTER BRAIN SAYS IT!!!" non-researching researchers, but absolutely convince them that they've researched better than you.
But as far as the body of any article, where I'm talking about the point of the matter - about the facts, about my opinion. In no way ever will I then say "Dum Dum AI, please compose an article." Never ever ever ever ever.
Alien: Joke-ish in that humanity confuses me and therefore my behavior and my Spock-ish reactions to its confusing aspect catch people's attention. I've done theater, and literally just yesterday two people confirmed immediately that should "Resident Alien" end up making a stage production I should be cast in the lead. ;-)
I'll check out that survey, but in case you mean you're asking here...
- It is hard to distinguish between whether something might just be hidden black budget technology getting to develop separately from the advances that are in the open for 70 years or whether it is genuine technology. The runaway hidden civilization hoarding technologies is real - it is just a matter of degree, so I still put plenty of stock in that as the source.
- That said, I find there is PLENTY of video evidence very compelling that seems to indicate a total domination of gravity and other standard physics limits like momentum, so it is reasonable to assume it is visitors, even if I'm unconvinced on that.
- If anything around that giant collection of evidence went to the idea that it is not us, it is the large variety of types (Just binge Paranormal Caught on Camera). There are many categories that are far removed from each other, so it would seem odd to think our development (and even other countries' development in comparison to each other) would be that far different (hovering massive slowly rotating physical pyramids above the Pentagon, versus the "sky jellyfish" are one comp that comes to mind)
- My best guess at "they're putting it right in our faces, man!" evidence is the an argument for reverse engineering tech from craft is now pretty old - how fiber optics sprang out of the blue and is still really the fastest signal application decades later.
- The face changing stuff IS pretty spooky. I've read my fair share of David Icke. But of course I only ever see that on video, so some of the morphiness looks weird, but as of now I don't find them to be great evidence (and that was so even when just artifacts of digital video made me wonder. Now that everyone and their brother is manipulating videos via AI, I really am not going to know what ones to be impressed by!)
- If they are here, I put no stock in the idea they're demons. That's just warmongers wanting to war, or secret mongers wanting to secret.
- I actually don't cover alien stuff much on my podcast, but a recent one is
TSOT144: DISCLOSURE by Tyson (Okay, really by very open evidence, but literal world-changing stuff).
Of course I was being sarcastic with the idea that I was the real breaker of the information, but the evidence I discuss there I really do find incredibly compelling if the participants reporting it are real and are being honest.
I appreciate the mention of my writing, but for some reason, my bio is completely wrong. It says I am “a silly little Orthodox Christian, mama of big kids, artist, living-room dancer, and home-making alchemist, doing my best to walk barefoot toward Eden in love and wonder.” I am not Orthodox (I’m Catholic), I do not have big kids (my oldest is only 6), nor am I an artist (though I do love crafting!) it seems you copy and pasted the wrong bio for me. Just wanted you to know!
Death in The Garden is an AI-free, AI-critical publication, and our videos are AI free as well. We discuss topics of civilization, myth, collapse, ecology, anthropology, history, and we do some journalism. I (Maren Morgan) am also an aspiring novelist and I don't use AI for any of my creative process whatsoever. I hope we can be added to this list.
I don't have access to pms due to age verification (digital ID) requirements. Would it be possible to for Real Left to republish an abridged version of this (ending after pertinent articles on the subject section) with full credit to author? Please contact: llsinbox@posteo.net if so.
I don't use AI to generate content either. I slowed down my sharing due to the ever-growing trend of AI content. It makes the landscape much more cluttered. I see others feeling this way too.
It's perplexing that there needs to be a list for natural writers. Not a critique to you, but even naming the list "non (anything)" is strange. It's a sign that we are all on the other side of the artificiality that's taken us all by storm. I understand naming the list "non-A.I." as from the perspective of A.I. content-generation, that's what it is. Which makes sense from that reference point.
Another way of naming the list could be to say "Human-generated Writing" or "Natural Writing" if wanting to remain in the affirmative. May seem of minimal importance to some, but it really seems odd to reference the human-generated, natural writers with a label framing their writing by attributing them with a negation to the thing they're not doing. Food for thought.
I’ll add you to the list next time I’m at a computer.
I will also contemplate your suggestion for different posts going forward.
One of the reasons I was so specific in referencing generative ai specifically is that those that are dependant on this technology have a way of muddying the waters and blurring lines to attempt and normalize their glorified plagiarism so I suspect they would take your suggested terms and tell themselves they fit right into that label.
They may say “since humans made ai and humans are part of nature, my using generative ai for writing is still “natural” writing and human writing” and justify obfuscating in that way.
My wording was specific so there is no wiggle room for word games and mind games.
People either use it or not, they are generative ai dependent or not.
Yes, makes sense that you'd describe the list you've comprised here in such a way. The lines have already been blurred, so we must work within those parameters. I hear what you're saying about the need for to make the clear distinction of "non-A.I." Like you mention, to phrase/frame it in a way to eliminate the wiggle room for word or mind games.
As for my suggestion around affirmative language assertion, I'm keeping in mind for the bigger picture as A.I. generated content continues to unfold. Moving forward, I wish to be mindful of avoiding a road where I'll have to refer to myself as a non-A.I. writer. It would seem odd to frame myself by something I'm not doing. Just like as I age, I won't say I have a non-cosmetically altered face. I'll simply call it my face :-)
You’re welcome and thanks for elaborating on your thinking behind affirmative labels.
Alas, in this era when products containing glyphosate and transgenic organisms are marketed as “all natural” in grocery stores, the need for a decisive “non-gmo” label arises. The same is unfortunately true of ai generated content now in some contexts (if one wants to leave no room for misunderstanding).
I have experienced similar aggressive censorship when asking other generative AI dependent Substackers if they use AI.
Such behavior is a sort of answer in and of itself.
We are living in a time of large amounts of “in the closet” AI chatbot addicts (they want the rapid fire posting capability to put out monotonous authoritative sounding AI slop to get undiscerning paid subscribers but do not want to risk losing half their audience if they admitted they do not write their own posts).
It is THEY who provide evidence with the disinfo and gaslighting they publish. :)
Check for "compartmentalization" among my publications for a start. The agents among them frequently publish diversions and false information. Of course, I'm not interested in being sued for libel, so I cannot name any. :)
I’ll add you to the list when I have time , but if you cannot provide any evidence here nor name who you are referring to as “agents”, I will have to disregard the second part of your comment.
What an excellent idea! I think I counted 17 of your top 20 amongst people I consider reliable and ahead of all the curves when it comes to independent journalism 🙌🏻
I’m just starting to write again after a 5 year hiatus. You have my word that my information comes from my own lived experience and not AI!
I appreciate the comment and I’ll add you to the list next chance I get.
FYI - I did not put the list in any particular order to signify some people as being above others in my eyes but I am glad to hear you already appreciate the content of many on the list.
This is a great list and a tremendous mount of work to prepare.
I have a suggestion that might make your list more popular (the suggestion just kept growing, ignore if busy). Ask a programmer to prepare a simple web interface that you can cut and paste in the list of SubStacks that you follow and those that follow you to see which ones you trust and which you do not. Collect the SubStacks that others query and add the most popular ones to your list every now and then when you make updates, it will provide new suggestions. You can then add an additional PLUS parameter (or more) that checks to see if the sites are in Bill Rice Jr.'s top 150 covid contrarian list. You could then add MINUS parameters for those that believe in flat-earth, no-virus and no-moon-landing. Some less provable conspiracies could warrant a caution for those that confuse cloud-seeding/chemtrails/geoengineering, the climate narrative, race of giants and UFOs. You could add any clearly defined conspiracy theories that are used to divide people and spread FUD with the most common ones offered as a 'community default conspiracy filter'. Visitors can flag someone as a flat earth person if they include a referenced quote and the substack owner can then have the flag removed if they document a more recent public rebuttal or opposing position.
As you increase your staff (I think Bill would be a great ally) you could add other platforms to your vetting list, LinkedIn, FaceBook, X, Telegram, PickAxe, BlueSky, Mastodon. Charge a US$10 yearly fee for edit rights and a US$1 fee to make reports. Preparing it into a browser plugin that automatically provides a web visitor with a indication of trustworthiness according to personal BIASES when the user hovers or right clicks over a NAME of a AUTHOR/JOURNALIST/REPORTER or COMPANY would make the internet a much better place. Being able to see if a commenter is a human would make reading them more interesting I expect.
If you or someone on out team does not do this someone else will and it may be the establishment. You have done a lot of the thinking work already and it now just needs automation. There is a site that vets news stories I have seen advertised a few times that USA left right bias and you could perhaps purchase access to their API or form partnership to provide automated checking of headlines (perhaps a revenue stream). The only real way to win against the behemoth is if accurate information reaches everyone. If this sort of tool was built into all open-source browsers and free on all app stores, virally recommended to all children and suggested for parents to help their children become media critical it might pivot the world. The extremists can select all the crazy biases they like but if a parent tells their kid to select the "rational science based" filter as their default it would be great.
I personally never have, do not plan to and hope never to be forced into passing machine text off as my own. I also will not knowingly pass quoted machine text off as written by a human but this cannot be guaranteed. I have a small low volume substack with 50+ subscribers so if it meets your standard you may add it to your list. I recommend you add Bill Rice Jr. as well.
I am happy to brainstorm and offer advice where I can. My other project to save the world is even better and I wrote about it on my substack. The title is "How to beat the advertisers at their own game" and they could be combined to save the world TWICE.
Hello, Gavin! As Kalle has suggested, I should be added to this list if not already there. (I didn't check) Although hopefully you just mean writing and not images.
I can’t remember if you are on the list, I’ll check when I have a minute and add you if you are not already.
As someone brought up in the comments section here ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/non-ai-writers-list/comment/202775889 ) some people feel i should have excluded people from the list that use AI generated images , however I did not include that as a prerequisite when I first worded my post so I am not going to change that now.
I do not have any criteria or pre-requisites for the list aside from an individual declaring they do not use the tech and wanting to be on the list.
That means people are on the list that express views I do not agree with, and I am okay with that as I am not trying to create an echo chamber that supports my views, but rather attempting to give people that value original human thought a space to find genuine human expression through all the AI noise.
I'm another nobody who doesn't use AI for anything. I'm a programmer, so I should be champing at the bit to use AI to write code. But when I look at what the Smart People are doing with it, I'm horrified. Thankfully I'm retired, so I am not being forced to use this stuff. At some point I will write about my resistance, though I realize it will make little difference; it will be like trying to stop a tsunami with a canoe paddle.
I would be happy to have my two columns, Lake Ivan Film Journal and Improvisation Technique, added to the list.
I have added you to the list.
I'm fledgling on substack, but 100% I will never ever ever ever EVER use AI to even spellcheck, let alone edit, let alone write my substack. Not the articles, not the notes, not the comments. Not my podcast episode descriptions (though I can do nothing about auto-generated chapters when it gets to spotify ;-) ). As to a little intro, let's go with this:
The Scales of Truth is organically inspired, through curiosity, suspicion, and a boiling hate for the corrupt and the liars. While people have accused Tyson of being alien, never ever will they accuse him of either being AI or not being genuine. Tyson covers points of view considerably less limited by partisanship-approved talking points, with a heavy emphasis on whatever is the largest threat to humanity and freedom at the given time. Secondarily, sports points of views, and sometimes out-there "crank files" points of view (but ARE they "crank files," really?).
Both fledglings and high flying condors are welcome on the list !
Add you.
I hope to be able to check out your work when i have time.
I am curious if you could elaborate on the accusations of you being an “alien”.
And what are your thoughts on this poll linked below?
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/poll-of-the-month-are-we-being-engaged
I also was just thinking - now I will QUOTE AI, like AI summaries on top of a search result, or the rabbit hole of the follow-up questions. Almost always because I like to then examine how it is often wrong, and how many times you have to scold it or coax it in order for it to be right. But it is only because the examination of its poor functioning is the subject of my analysis.
BTW, my latest "why the hell did you do that??!" detour of AI being wrong resulted as it typically does - instead of just helping me find a fact I knew I'd confirmed before it gave me negative characterizations on whatever subject matter it thought I was implying. Anyway, in THIS session it revealed that it is programmed to check the body of "fact check" sites, that we now all know tend to dismiss anything not mainstream and/or have worse bias than that (snopes is particularly horrible, and the AI admitted it was used). So that's where the very certain characterizations of some ideas are coming from in AI search summaries, where they're trying to debunk something you hadn't even asked yet.
(And that was the AI summaries at the top of brave search, so if they're trained to check that "fact check" slop and create their "opinions," asked for or not, by tallying up the most popular opinion, then I've zero doubt the more mainstream ones are doing it)
So that aspect really will, unfortunately, stop in their tracks the "I'll check, but then I'll believe nearly immediately... 'CUZ 'PUTER BRAIN SAYS IT!!!" non-researching researchers, but absolutely convince them that they've researched better than you.
But as far as the body of any article, where I'm talking about the point of the matter - about the facts, about my opinion. In no way ever will I then say "Dum Dum AI, please compose an article." Never ever ever ever ever.
Alien: Joke-ish in that humanity confuses me and therefore my behavior and my Spock-ish reactions to its confusing aspect catch people's attention. I've done theater, and literally just yesterday two people confirmed immediately that should "Resident Alien" end up making a stage production I should be cast in the lead. ;-)
I'll check out that survey, but in case you mean you're asking here...
- It is hard to distinguish between whether something might just be hidden black budget technology getting to develop separately from the advances that are in the open for 70 years or whether it is genuine technology. The runaway hidden civilization hoarding technologies is real - it is just a matter of degree, so I still put plenty of stock in that as the source.
- That said, I find there is PLENTY of video evidence very compelling that seems to indicate a total domination of gravity and other standard physics limits like momentum, so it is reasonable to assume it is visitors, even if I'm unconvinced on that.
- If anything around that giant collection of evidence went to the idea that it is not us, it is the large variety of types (Just binge Paranormal Caught on Camera). There are many categories that are far removed from each other, so it would seem odd to think our development (and even other countries' development in comparison to each other) would be that far different (hovering massive slowly rotating physical pyramids above the Pentagon, versus the "sky jellyfish" are one comp that comes to mind)
- My best guess at "they're putting it right in our faces, man!" evidence is the an argument for reverse engineering tech from craft is now pretty old - how fiber optics sprang out of the blue and is still really the fastest signal application decades later.
- The face changing stuff IS pretty spooky. I've read my fair share of David Icke. But of course I only ever see that on video, so some of the morphiness looks weird, but as of now I don't find them to be great evidence (and that was so even when just artifacts of digital video made me wonder. Now that everyone and their brother is manipulating videos via AI, I really am not going to know what ones to be impressed by!)
- If they are here, I put no stock in the idea they're demons. That's just warmongers wanting to war, or secret mongers wanting to secret.
- I actually don't cover alien stuff much on my podcast, but a recent one is
TSOT144: DISCLOSURE by Tyson (Okay, really by very open evidence, but literal world-changing stuff).
Of course I was being sarcastic with the idea that I was the real breaker of the information, but the evidence I discuss there I really do find incredibly compelling if the participants reporting it are real and are being honest.
I appreciate the in depth response(s).
I have quite a few plates spinning right now but I look forward to discussing this further with you when I have more time.
I appreciate the mention of my writing, but for some reason, my bio is completely wrong. It says I am “a silly little Orthodox Christian, mama of big kids, artist, living-room dancer, and home-making alchemist, doing my best to walk barefoot toward Eden in love and wonder.” I am not Orthodox (I’m Catholic), I do not have big kids (my oldest is only 6), nor am I an artist (though I do love crafting!) it seems you copy and pasted the wrong bio for me. Just wanted you to know!
okay its fixed, thanks for reaching out
Oh my bad! i`ll fix that right away
Death in The Garden is an AI-free, AI-critical publication, and our videos are AI free as well. We discuss topics of civilization, myth, collapse, ecology, anthropology, history, and we do some journalism. I (Maren Morgan) am also an aspiring novelist and I don't use AI for any of my creative process whatsoever. I hope we can be added to this list.
deathinthegarden.substack.com
Excellent! Added you to the list! Thanks for the comment.
Thank you so much! 🙏🏼
Let's Go Wild, derekt.substack.com
I don't have access to pms due to age verification (digital ID) requirements. Would it be possible to for Real Left to republish an abridged version of this (ending after pertinent articles on the subject section) with full credit to author? Please contact: llsinbox@posteo.net if so.
Hey Emily, sure you can do that.
Is “Real Left” a Substack publication?
I’ll email when I get home and can sit at a computer later but feel free to republish the article and tag me when you do.
Thanks for being interested in highlighting real human authors and creators.
Hi Gavin, could you please add me to the non AI list? Thanks!
You have now been added to the list. Thank you for sharing our unique gifts with the world without distorting or diluting them with AI slop ! :)
Hey Jessica, sure I will do that next time I’m at a computer
Thank you creating this post and list Gavin.
I don't use AI to generate content either. I slowed down my sharing due to the ever-growing trend of AI content. It makes the landscape much more cluttered. I see others feeling this way too.
It's perplexing that there needs to be a list for natural writers. Not a critique to you, but even naming the list "non (anything)" is strange. It's a sign that we are all on the other side of the artificiality that's taken us all by storm. I understand naming the list "non-A.I." as from the perspective of A.I. content-generation, that's what it is. Which makes sense from that reference point.
Another way of naming the list could be to say "Human-generated Writing" or "Natural Writing" if wanting to remain in the affirmative. May seem of minimal importance to some, but it really seems odd to reference the human-generated, natural writers with a label framing their writing by attributing them with a negation to the thing they're not doing. Food for thought.
Hey James , thanks for the comment.
I’ll add you to the list next time I’m at a computer.
I will also contemplate your suggestion for different posts going forward.
One of the reasons I was so specific in referencing generative ai specifically is that those that are dependant on this technology have a way of muddying the waters and blurring lines to attempt and normalize their glorified plagiarism so I suspect they would take your suggested terms and tell themselves they fit right into that label.
They may say “since humans made ai and humans are part of nature, my using generative ai for writing is still “natural” writing and human writing” and justify obfuscating in that way.
My wording was specific so there is no wiggle room for word games and mind games.
People either use it or not, they are generative ai dependent or not.
Thanks again for the food for thought.
Appreciate you adding me to the list here Gavin!
Yes, makes sense that you'd describe the list you've comprised here in such a way. The lines have already been blurred, so we must work within those parameters. I hear what you're saying about the need for to make the clear distinction of "non-A.I." Like you mention, to phrase/frame it in a way to eliminate the wiggle room for word or mind games.
As for my suggestion around affirmative language assertion, I'm keeping in mind for the bigger picture as A.I. generated content continues to unfold. Moving forward, I wish to be mindful of avoiding a road where I'll have to refer to myself as a non-A.I. writer. It would seem odd to frame myself by something I'm not doing. Just like as I age, I won't say I have a non-cosmetically altered face. I'll simply call it my face :-)
You’re welcome and thanks for elaborating on your thinking behind affirmative labels.
Alas, in this era when products containing glyphosate and transgenic organisms are marketed as “all natural” in grocery stores, the need for a decisive “non-gmo” label arises. The same is unfortunately true of ai generated content now in some contexts (if one wants to leave no room for misunderstanding).
I asked Unbekoming if it was AI and I've been banned from commenting for 30 days!
It's so obvious when reading an AI generated article.
It is possible to instruct the bot to write something without repetition, it may stop me zoning out halfway through.
I appreciate you sharing that.
I have experienced similar aggressive censorship when asking other generative AI dependent Substackers if they use AI.
Such behavior is a sort of answer in and of itself.
We are living in a time of large amounts of “in the closet” AI chatbot addicts (they want the rapid fire posting capability to put out monotonous authoritative sounding AI slop to get undiscerning paid subscribers but do not want to risk losing half their audience if they admitted they do not write their own posts).
Thanks for the mention, and a fantastic list of artists and writers to check out and support!
The "Non-AI list" still includes a generous number of agents. At ,5753 readers, I am not AI, and I'm not on the list! :)
Hi Ray, I’ll add you to the non-A.I. Writers list next time I’m at a computer.
Which people on the list specifically are you saying are “agents” and can you provide evidence please?
...and I'm not an agent, either. :)
It is THEY who provide evidence with the disinfo and gaslighting they publish. :)
Check for "compartmentalization" among my publications for a start. The agents among them frequently publish diversions and false information. Of course, I'm not interested in being sued for libel, so I cannot name any. :)
I’ll add you to the list when I have time , but if you cannot provide any evidence here nor name who you are referring to as “agents”, I will have to disregard the second part of your comment.
Those who have eyes, will see it! :)
What an excellent idea! I think I counted 17 of your top 20 amongst people I consider reliable and ahead of all the curves when it comes to independent journalism 🙌🏻
I’m just starting to write again after a 5 year hiatus. You have my word that my information comes from my own lived experience and not AI!
You are now added to the list :)
Thanks so much. I'm really loving your content Gavin, it's truly needed in this strange time that we all find ourselves in. Have a lovely day
Hey Reneé,
I appreciate the comment and I’ll add you to the list next chance I get.
FYI - I did not put the list in any particular order to signify some people as being above others in my eyes but I am glad to hear you already appreciate the content of many on the list.
This is a great list and a tremendous mount of work to prepare.
I have a suggestion that might make your list more popular (the suggestion just kept growing, ignore if busy). Ask a programmer to prepare a simple web interface that you can cut and paste in the list of SubStacks that you follow and those that follow you to see which ones you trust and which you do not. Collect the SubStacks that others query and add the most popular ones to your list every now and then when you make updates, it will provide new suggestions. You can then add an additional PLUS parameter (or more) that checks to see if the sites are in Bill Rice Jr.'s top 150 covid contrarian list. You could then add MINUS parameters for those that believe in flat-earth, no-virus and no-moon-landing. Some less provable conspiracies could warrant a caution for those that confuse cloud-seeding/chemtrails/geoengineering, the climate narrative, race of giants and UFOs. You could add any clearly defined conspiracy theories that are used to divide people and spread FUD with the most common ones offered as a 'community default conspiracy filter'. Visitors can flag someone as a flat earth person if they include a referenced quote and the substack owner can then have the flag removed if they document a more recent public rebuttal or opposing position.
As you increase your staff (I think Bill would be a great ally) you could add other platforms to your vetting list, LinkedIn, FaceBook, X, Telegram, PickAxe, BlueSky, Mastodon. Charge a US$10 yearly fee for edit rights and a US$1 fee to make reports. Preparing it into a browser plugin that automatically provides a web visitor with a indication of trustworthiness according to personal BIASES when the user hovers or right clicks over a NAME of a AUTHOR/JOURNALIST/REPORTER or COMPANY would make the internet a much better place. Being able to see if a commenter is a human would make reading them more interesting I expect.
If you or someone on out team does not do this someone else will and it may be the establishment. You have done a lot of the thinking work already and it now just needs automation. There is a site that vets news stories I have seen advertised a few times that USA left right bias and you could perhaps purchase access to their API or form partnership to provide automated checking of headlines (perhaps a revenue stream). The only real way to win against the behemoth is if accurate information reaches everyone. If this sort of tool was built into all open-source browsers and free on all app stores, virally recommended to all children and suggested for parents to help their children become media critical it might pivot the world. The extremists can select all the crazy biases they like but if a parent tells their kid to select the "rational science based" filter as their default it would be great.
I personally never have, do not plan to and hope never to be forced into passing machine text off as my own. I also will not knowingly pass quoted machine text off as written by a human but this cannot be guaranteed. I have a small low volume substack with 50+ subscribers so if it meets your standard you may add it to your list. I recommend you add Bill Rice Jr. as well.
I am happy to brainstorm and offer advice where I can. My other project to save the world is even better and I wrote about it on my substack. The title is "How to beat the advertisers at their own game" and they could be combined to save the world TWICE.
Hello, Gavin! As Kalle has suggested, I should be added to this list if not already there. (I didn't check) Although hopefully you just mean writing and not images.
I checked and found you were already included in the list :)
Here:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/non-ai-writers-list?r=q2yay&selection=407cacc5-51cb-45c7-be4f-626862d6b521&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web&aspectRatio=instagram&textColor=%23ffffff&bgImage=true
Hey Tereza,
I can’t remember if you are on the list, I’ll check when I have a minute and add you if you are not already.
As someone brought up in the comments section here ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/non-ai-writers-list/comment/202775889 ) some people feel i should have excluded people from the list that use AI generated images , however I did not include that as a prerequisite when I first worded my post so I am not going to change that now.
I will add you to the list.
I do not have any criteria or pre-requisites for the list aside from an individual declaring they do not use the tech and wanting to be on the list.
That means people are on the list that express views I do not agree with, and I am okay with that as I am not trying to create an echo chamber that supports my views, but rather attempting to give people that value original human thought a space to find genuine human expression through all the AI noise.
Thanks for the comment.
Gavin, I believe I read you are working on an additional book? Check this out see if its a fit for you:
https://humansandnature.org/book-manuscript-proposals/
Thanks for thinking of me :) i`ll check it out
Do you know if they have any public stance on AI generated books?
Never mind I found that they do not accept AI generated books so that is good.
Yes they are very humans and nature centered ...
I'm another nobody who doesn't use AI for anything. I'm a programmer, so I should be champing at the bit to use AI to write code. But when I look at what the Smart People are doing with it, I'm horrified. Thankfully I'm retired, so I am not being forced to use this stuff. At some point I will write about my resistance, though I realize it will make little difference; it will be like trying to stop a tsunami with a canoe paddle.
Wow! Thank you for including me on the list!