Hello all, new to the forum - not a proper writer (I dabbled). I'm sure by now everyone's had a good play with ChatGTP and similar. I wanted to gauge opinion on these tools from writers to enhance their work - or maybe replace it. Previous posts seem to be relatively negative, is that still the consensus and if so why? My view is that these tools can be used to enhance a writer, much the same way Word or Spellchecker already have. While ChatGTP is not yet good at writing anything substantial, I have found use for it generating report conclusions or prose from bullet point lists. I find it still requires editing (particularly to be more concise), but significantly speeds up preparing documents and reports. I tried recently applying my learnings to creative writing (surely not the only person to do so), and after some editing was quite pleased with the result from relatively little work! Do you use these tools to help you write at all?
The problem, and this is taking things to a long-term conclusion, is that mediocrity as a concept is entirely relative. Heck it's baked into the word. Whatever can be done with little work or skill (skill takes work, so one and the same ultimately) will become commonplace. Audience will seek out whatever transcends commonplace. Same reason no one wants to read my shopping list. So the slush pile balloons far beyond its initial size, but the vast majority of readers keep on reading a minority of what's published. In the end it's just a funnel into slush, content upon content that just... takes up space regardless of its quality, because it's all that quality. Possibly it could lead to an arms race between deviant trends and automation mimicking them. Ha ha: in the end, all recognizable story structures and prose are demolished by creators clawing their way out of the widest part of normal distribution. Their ordnance? Subversion. For the last remaining readers, satisfaction is only possible through the lens of steep post-x-to-infinity elitism. Spoiler: Relevant lecture by Professor Brad Fiedel
Interesting view. Do you write just for fun, or do so professionally? I think I understand your point. My theory is that with AI, a human can improve their writing by speeding up some processes, letting the writer focus on the important aspects that really matter. Have you had any attempts at doing so? I wonder if there will be an arms race between professional writers, with some leveraging AI successfully and others being left behind. I've heard true horror stories of how competitive the writing industry is and how it is a rather "winner takes all" affair.
This reminds me of the studio process for making paintings in the Renaissance. A master like Leonardo for instance ran a school, called his studio, and whenever some local kid showed some talent and interest in drawing, the family would send him as an apprentice. The students lived at the studio, and started out doing the equivalent of sharpening pencils and sweeping floors etc, and would learn stage by stage how to draw and paint. Advanced students would execute the more prosaic parts of the laying-in (in charcoal) and blocking-in (in paint) on the canvas, and the master would concentrate on compositional sketches, directing the students, and executing the final stages of work. But these students were specially trained for a lifetime to paint in a very particular way—the way of that specific master. Their lives were dedicated to learning it. You're talking about trusting parts of the process to computers programmed by complete strangers to 'write' to whatever criteria they decided on as some kind of statistical average. I do think it could be used in certain small ways. Someone here asked ChatGPT to describe a pastor's office, because he had no idea what one might look like, and it gave him some ideas he could work with. But I think you'd need to be very careful with how much of it you use and how. Of course for most of us, unless we're already professionals, the job is to study and practice writing. Learn the tricks of the trade and develop the abilities. Before you finish that process I would stay away from something like AI. It could make you lazy and you might allocate too much of the creative process to the machine, cheating yourself of the ability to learn how to write well. Personally I don't look at any part of the process as dull work that I'd rather export to someone or something else. I see every aspect as a vital part of the creative work, all linked together tightly. Parts of it obviously, other parts subliminally. A computer not only doesn't have an unconscious mind, but it has no idea what's going on in yours, and so can't play around with those invisible currents that make up subtext, that we often don't notice ourselves until well after writing them.
Writing is my retirement hobby - who knows where it will lead? This. This is very well said. Writing is not just about putting words together in a passable fashion. It's imbuing them with a deeper meaning that comes from the writer's creative force. In my view, not only is using AI cheating, but it can never bring to the writing those deeper layers that make it art.
I like to compare writing stories with AI to cheating in video games. If an AI does most of the work for you, then did you really do it? What is the achievement here? What hardship did you go through? Can you say that you learned anything by the end of it? Because that's the whole point of hardship. There's something that you lack which prevents you from reaching the goal. By overcoming that hardship, you gain what you're missing. I'm a writer by hobby. From start to finish, I go through the blood and sweat shedding process of finishing my manuscript word by word. And while that's purely metaphorical, it really does feel like that. Some of my stories take thinking and lots of staring at a blank document trying to figure out a good start, a good middle, and a good ending. How do the events start? How do they rise? And how do they decline? What does the overall arc of my work look like in paper? Is it good enough? Or is it a little bit shallow-looking? @Xoic is right. If a writer doesn't study the art of creative writing to actually understand how to create a story which has impact and instead jumps straight into Sudowrite, then learning will be severely skewed. There's also little reason to believe in the judgement of a writer who has never actually written an impactful piece of writing, by themselves, from start to finish. I'm not talking about you specifically here. I don't know who you are and what your writing skill is. I mean this from a general perspective because the AI revolution has generated an influx of people who are trying to use machine learning algorithms to fill the void their lack of skills . At the minute, nothing Sudowrite or ChatGPT can write is able to replace what I write. This in interesting point. But here's the thing. Speaking from a hypothetical level, if AI gets so good it can write a novel which will target a specific audience and sell well, it will simply become a marketing scheme. Businessmen will use AI to please commercial fiction markets for the purpose of making money. Like, say, the romance market. Romance sells well and it follows patterns. If AI can learn from best-selling romance novels and find a psychological pattern within them that acts as the underlying cause for their success, it will be able to generate "new" results based on this pattern and produce best-selling novels. That will bring the dawn to an era of mass-produced stories. We already have this for mass-produced foods like pasta. Manufacturers like Napolina can make millions of pasta packets at extremely fast rates. Their pasta isn't good, but it is good enough that it will satisfy the masses. But artisan pasta will always be better, and most people know that. It's just that they don't care because it's a cheap way to bring satisfaction to their life. If this indeed becomes a real market in the future, I want no part of it. I'm interested in human-made stories by human writers who are actually interested in the art of writing, even the hard part. Because I've been through the hard part and I know what it's like. Often when I'm reading a book, I always try to imagine what the writer went through to write it. It seems amazing to me that some writers can produce what they do because I've no idea how I would manage it! As for writers who've got skill to do it by themselves but are interested in using AI assistive tools like Sudowrite to help them through things like writer's block, I would probably tolerate this better if the AI-generated text is used simply for inspiration, and is not pasted to the final work.
I hadn't come across Sudowrite. This one is cool, and has a whole thing called the "story engine" - very fancy! Haha you a right to judge my writing skills as poor - perhaps why I'm so impressed with these AIs 100% get it if you are writing purely for as a hobbyist and want to do everything yourself and not use these AIs. I also believe you are very correct that an AI will not replace a human writer for a good while (ignore the doomsayers - I think it'll be at least a few decades). However, I don't think these AI tools should be shunned. They are, at the end of the day, just tools - like a more advanced spell checker or auto-complete. And like any tool, will be much more effective in the hands of a skilled user (i.e. someone with good experience writing, probably both with and without AIs). "That will bring the dawn to an era of mass-produced stories." - are we not already there? I mean Patterson has over 200 books thanks to a team of co-writers. It's no secret that, save for a few outliers, it is extremely challenging for professional authors! I worry the era of professional authors working alone to craft a commercially successful magnum opus may be drawing to a close. Of course, writing for fun is an entirely different matter and will hopefully continue forever Fast forward 5-10 years, would you care if you learnt some of your favorite authors used these AI tools to help write bits of their novels?
If an author puts out a book written with the assistance of AI and did not clearly label it as such, that is fraud, so, yes, I would care.
Well, fraud is a very strong word. It's worth bearing in mind that most authors likely use spell checkers, autocomplete and synonym tools (basic ones exist natively in Word now) - not to mention online search engines for research. These tools are all enhanced by AIs (i.e. neural nets) now.
The camera put an end to the great age of magazine illustration. It made everything so much easier and faster, and artists just couldn't compete anymore, mostly because snapping a photograph is so much faster, and people were fascinated by the new technology. Photoshop and photo-bashing essentially put an end to commercial illustration and hand-painted art for the video game industry. Now they like the fact that the art looks just like the CGI in the game itself. Computerized 'loop' music has just about put an end to musicians actually learning to play instruments to make popular music. Anybody can do it now, just press the "Make music" button on your computer. But in each case what's replaced the actual artistry is machine-made pablum, that has no soul to it. Most people can't tell. You need to be educated as an artist to some extent before you can really recognize artistry and separate it out from the churned-out dross. But to those of us who have developed our aesthetic sensibilites by studying art, it's glaringly obvious and almost sickening. I can clearly hear the difference between pop music made in decades past and today's pop music. And it's. much more obvious with something like progressive rock compared to—well, there's not much of an equivalent today. There's nobody playing an instrument who sweated their life into it over a period of decades and learned to express their soul through it. Now all the computer-produced music (even the little that's still originally made by musicians) is snapped to a 'grid', meaning all the beats are digitally quantized to fall with perfect regularity at precise points in time. Real muisc isn't like that. Musicians develop an ear for rhythm and beat, they speed up and and slow down just the right amount in just the right places. This gives the music heart and soul and makes it relatable to human beings who can sense it. Digitally quantized music sounds like it was made by machines for machines, and sadly the machines don't understand that at all. The problem with AI is that people think they can "understand", because they can talk and write. They've become incredible at mimicking us, and some people believe they have personalities and can think and imagine. They're machines, they don't think or feel. They merely imitate it. They're even programmed to answer questions as if they do feel and think, but it's all an ilusion. They're no more human than an electric can opener (which will be able to talk one day soon).
But none of these things do the actual writing. They are only supports. The writer is in love with words, in love with language. AI loves nothing. It's soulless.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't judging your skills. That's pretty hard to do when I haven't read a single word of what you've written. That's not anywhere near close to what an AI would be capable of. AI has the ability to generate content thousands of times faster than a human. Mass-production means to continually create something at exponential rates. The author you mentioned has written two-hundred novels since 1979. It's impressive but nothing close to "mass-production". AI could probably write 10 novels in a matter of hours. But again, this is purely hypothetical. There are no models capable of doing what I've described, likely because they're prone to repetition. If current AI models wrote ten Romance-genre books, all ten of those would probably be extremely similar to one another, and that's a kill-joy. Commercial fiction follow typical structures and tropes but most authors aim to add their own "spin" to whatever they are writing.
To be honest, AI kind of is fraud. It takes mass amounts of human-generated content and trains itself on it so it can mimick what we make. That's how AI works and I'm personally not onboard with my works being included in a dataset. It should be illegal for any author's work to be included in AI datasets without explicit permission.
Seems like I'm pretty outnumbered in my opinions on here at least I must say, I appreciate the cordial discussion in this forum - it is becoming rare on the internet... Of course these language models have no understanding yet (maybe in a few decades), they are merely tools. As a scientist it is fascinating to see these models develop though. We may get an answer to the age old question on what it actually means to be sentient and to what an emotion is! However, I'm not sure I agree with @Xoic on digitization and automation making art worse - I'm a big techno fan so may be biased . I do agree that current pop is not worth your time as it's made to appeal to the lowest denominator - but there is some great stuff still being produced. Arranging music is definitely art in my book. Modern Pixar movies make use of automated simulations of water, light and fur - but they are very much art. I do agreed we are a ways away from AI writing entire novels. But I'm not really talking about AIs writing an entire novels, and instead on them assisting the author. The lack of "soul" isn't an issue if the author brings that to the table surely? - though I don't believe humans have souls However, as you've stated, if doing it for fun and you don't want to use an AI - then that makes the question mute haha This is a really salient and interesting point! Unfortunately I think our legal systems will take years to catchup. The counter argument I guess would be that humans learn by consuming and mimicking other art, so if you publish it to the public domain then it's no different for and silicon or a meat brain. I'm not sure I buy this argument myself. I also worry how they got all the data, and if they indeed have a license to it.
I did notice I had to make an account to see anything posted in the workshop. Is this a move to prevent it being used to train AIs? If so - smart!
I think this is just a joke, but I'm not talking about the religious idea of a soul. More like what's referenced by soul music, and the blues—in other words music played entirely by feel, that goes straight to your emotions. It's that ineffable part of the mind and the emotions that we can't control, can only feel, and that can guide the creation of art. And I agree I like a lot of music made using electronic keyboards and the like. But I also like wallpaper with pleasing repetitive patterns on it, and staring into a fire or a lava lamp. Of course you can't completley separate electronic music from what I would consider more artistic music, there's usually a mix of some human decisions along with the more mechanical beat etc, but it's a matter of balance. Most of the electronic music I like was made in past decades, with people playing a keyboard, rather than just selecting a beat from a menu on the computer. With a humn being playing it, they'll subtly introduce those slight changes in beat that give it some life. But today of course, even music originally played by people using real instruments gets quantized to a grid and all life is instantly drained from it. Maybe a demonstration would help illustrate what I'm talking about: Rick Beato has a few other videos on the same subject of how modern computer programs are killing the human-ness of music. I won't post them directly, but here are links if you (or anyone else) want to see them: How Computers Ruined Rock Music Why the Jonas Brothers “Sucker” is NOT Funky But hey, despite the fact that we may be diametrically opposed on this particular subject, we're both writers, and that makes us brothers under the skin! Welcome aboard our little banana boat, and I hope we have lots of discussions where we agree on things!
Interesting. I'll check this out later, might need something better than my phone speakers XP Thank you for the welcome. I'll be sure to do some reviewing and post some of my own stuff in the workshop. As per the rules, no AI stuff I am still keen to see how these AIs can be utilized. If anyone else would like to discuss how they've found ways to integrate AI into their workflow, or reviewing AI assisted writing - I'd be down for that.
I also should add that I'm just sharing my own rather strong feelings on the subject. I have nothing against someone playing around with AI or using it if it works for them. I'll stop posting here so if anyone wants to take you up on your invitation to talk about this, it can happen.
Yes, I should add... despite my paragraph-long posts that feel as heated as a Jalapeno, I hope I don't come across as too stern. It's a topic I feel passionate about as someone who's been trying to get good... and then suddenly this technology comes along to shake the status quo. Many here feel like this but it's nothing personal. We're just talking. If you want to use AI, use AI. It's not like you'll be the first person anyway. The Pandora Box has already been opened. There's no getting AI back into it. Anyway, yes, welcome. Now I'm curious to see what kind of stuff you write. I'll see you at the workshop...
Hey we avoided Godwin's law, so doing much better than most sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Because of this thread, I just had a little play with Sudowrite. As @Xoic mentioned, I feel like it could go the same way as photographs and photoshop/phone cameras. I used to dabble in photography, and I used photoshop for tweaks at the end, but I always justified it by saying you still needed to go to the effort, and be able to take a great photograph in the first place. Between the combination of editing tools and nearly every person on the planet seemingly having access to a good quality camera on their phone, the art of photography isn't what it was. A broken clock is still right twice a day - a person with a camera phone who takes hundreds of photos is going to strike it lucky every now and then and take a brilliant photo without even knowing how a camera works. Throw in social media, and photography as an art feels dead. It is what it is. Unfortunately I see AI and writing going the same way. Sure I use tools such as PWA, but unless I've missed a feature (which is very possible lol), I still need to create the story, and come up with the characters. The writing tool helps highlight things like redundant words, sentences that are bit too long and so on. It won't write a story for me. See my example for Sudowrite below. I entered the first paragraph into the engine, and AI came up with the rest. I can basically let it dictate the rest of the scene - a few tweaks here and there to tighten it up and remove a few inconsistencies and you wouldn't know the difference, but who's writing this thing? Me or it? I actually haven't worked out what my MC is going to do after the black sedan has turned up, but AI figured something out within seconds. As with everything, there will be stupid amounts of people who are already trying to take advantage of this and publish books, flooding the market even more. It will then lead to a lot of disillusionment, especially when you start reading something, and think... hmm, this sounds like it was written by AI. Going back to the photography example, I look at landscape photos and I can't really trust that the colors captured, especially with sunsets as an example, were even remotely close to the end image. He desperately clawed at the worn slats of the venetian blind, peering out into the night. Panic rushed through his veins like ice as he caught sight of it again. The black sedan. This time parked directly outside his townhouse. He stumbled back, his heart racing fast. He knew he had to act fast before they caught him. He had been on the run for weeks, but it seemed like they had finally caught up with him. He picked up his phone and dialed the only number he knew he could trust. "Hey, it's me. They're here," he said, his voice quivering with fear. "Alright, stay calm. I'll be right there," the voice on the other end replied before hanging up. He knew he had to keep himself hidden until help arrived. He quickly shut off all the lights and made his way to the back of the house where there was a small window. He tried to pry it open, but it was stuck. He heard footsteps getting closer. They were in the house. He could feel his heart pounding against his chest as he frantically tried to free the window.
I don’t currently believe in using ChatGPT, or any other AI assistance out there. What I know is that it can be a valuable tool for people to use - and it takes just about as long to write with AI help, as it does the old fashioned way (believe it or not). I am almost 51. So, I am quite biased (which I am the first to admit) about creating something that is purely one’s own - I was taught that writing from the heart is just as important as the brain. That takes AI out of the equation for me. That said, who knows what I may think in the future? Like I alluded to, AI can be a crucial component to writing a novel, when used correctly and not abused. In other words, lots of folks are using AI to write these days (which I realize) and I don’t hold it against them. These are the times we are living in - and while I may have reservations, I am open to change. - Grogu
As soon as you mention AI around artists, your ass is fair game. Saw a post on Reddit. OP mentioned AI and people just tore into them without even reading the rest. Then I replied with something about how AI might be able to help, and explained why, and I got my first downvotes because I lead with "maybe AI could help." Since there's no downvoting here: There may be a way AI could help. And it's in the same way something like CinemaSins helps me. I learn what not to do. Granted, CinemaSins is more of a joke-thing, but any bad piece of art can help. See the parts of a thing that are wrong, so you know what not to do when you take a stab at it. Let AI write a paragraph for you and see what's wrong with it, then next time you'll know not to do it when you do it yourself. Worse still, let an AI write a paragraph, and if it looks exactly like what you wrote, maybe do some revising. If you ask me if AI could "take over" (which you aren't, but I'm going to answer anyway, because I think I'm so insightful) I'm gonna go with yes, but the problem is not the AI. The problem is with less discerning readers. There are very popular books that are well written classic, but there are more books that are popular because they are easy. Pumped out to capitalize on a current trend. People like stories about sexy alien lizard S&M now? Here's fifty of them. What do you think the AI is going to use for a basis? Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy? Any of our books? Or the river of alien lizard-shlock? Sure, we're able to sniff out an AI (or, quite frankly, any in-it-for-quick-bucks writers), but the mass of muppets clawing their way through an airport bookstore for lizard-S&M to read on the flight aren't going to care. We create art. We're proud to create art. According to the Rijksmuseum, people on average spend 21 seconds looking at art.
