Views on AI assisted writting

Story telling is a creative activity. What ever form it takes. A computer can copy, and manipulate data, but it cannot create.

 

Oh, and speaking of AI, novelai is another gem in my toolkit. It's got this knack for helping me brainstorm plot twists. Anyone else giving it a go?

 

I work admin at a college, and the use of AI is very interesting. Obviously Professors don't want students to use AI to do things like write papers, but my supervisor wants me to use AI to make my emails sound more professional, in trying to convince me to do this he told me the story of his supervisor who is a tenured professor had a deadline for a grant she was writing, she didn't have time so she used ChatGPT to get it done.

I think that is SO funny. Professors tell students not use ChatGPT to write their papers and do their homework, but Professors will use ChatGPT to write their papers and do their homework.

I'm not knocking that professor, or saying she was wrong (and if it matters, technically she wasn't working as a professor at the time she was Provost), I just find it funny, part of my professional industry hates the idea of AI, but they also use it for everything.

I think the current attitude in the writing community of "don't use it ever, if you use it you will be blacklisted" is short sighted to say the least. It is a tool that is not going away.

In 50 years (probably much less) time will show we were some of the luckiest humans in history, because we will be the ones who get to decide how AI will be integrated into our lives (we're currently blowing that opportunity on a massive scale, but we can still turn it around). I don't want human writing to go the way of the dinosaurs but I think if the writing community out right shuns AI, they cut themselves off from the important conversations about the proper way to use it, and like it or not it will be used. The next generation of writers will be using AI like this generation uses Spellcheck.

edit: when I say "we are blowing that opportunity" to shape AI use, I am talking about the writing community, but not exclusively the writing community, the whole world is, some places going to far too fast with it, others (like but not limited to, writing circles) not willing to explore it.

 

AI is not going away. The problem is people are using it to write stories and then publish those stories as their own work. Which is fraud. There is also the issue of all the writers whose work was used to train the AI, and never compensated for that use of their work.

I think AI in writing will become a true tool, and not be used as a replacement for a writers actual work. Grammer checkers, while useful, are still very error prone. In 50 years, they might be functional as a line editor, or style editor.

 

AI was designed to plagiarize. As writers, we have to have problems with this. And nothing produced from AI can be copyrighted. There is no guarantee that the same story you think you are "creating" isn't being "created" for a dozen other people. All that is not to mention that the biggest part of writing is the writing itself. Writers write, and good ones do so in ways that are important and uniques.

I've never touched AI. Personally, it doesn't interest me. I don't see it as a tool for writing. It does everything for you. Maybe it's a tool, but I don't think anyone who uses AI can call themselves a writer anymore. I just don't see the point in using it if someone actually want to become a writer. You became a writer by writing. I'm not trying to sound arrogant when I say this, but I don't think there is anyway AI can produce what I can. I think probably all true writers feel that way.

 

The best use of AI as a writing tool is to get it to identify whether stories have been tainted by the use of other AI tools. A simple and efficient way for publishers and agents to identify the lying frauds pretending to be writers.

 

Using AI, for me, is like putting flesh on Imposter Syndrome.

Something I'm sure I'm not the only one to observe, the forum has a number of new members who come straight to AI threads or start their own, throwing out a question and conducting quite a civilised discussion. That's a bit like someone joining a gourmet cooking forum, and only wants to talk about TV dinners. It also smacks of market research and I'll not post on AI-related threads unless they're framed by members of note who've actually contributed to writing discussions as well.

 

I don't use any AI, to write.
I believe in using an AI to write, he's a cheater.
It is a machine, it cannot replace the work, thoughts, and art that comes from a human being.
When I want to improve, I read books, written by other human beings, (And I bought many), I do exercises. I write, I make a mistake, I rewrite, I make a mistake.
I am proud of all my mistakes, because they are mine, they are the result of study, work, of a human being.
It's frustrating that many writers use AI to write, I feel humiliated, because all the work I do is "mocked" by those who use a machine or AI to write, spitting and laughing at the work of those like me who work hard without cheating.

 

Writing is a journey. AI is at best the destination on a platter. On a less lofty note, I'm happy to shun AI for creation. It's fine for searching.

For writing? Pfft!

 

I hadn't thought about it like that, but now you say it both the entirely pro-AI voices on this thread were new, uncommonly unflappable, and both managed to mention a new subscription based AI service I'd not heard of before. Lets not be suckers and not feed the shills.

 

I realized it too this morning when this screen writer guy registered just to ask about a new AI model. He said he was a screen writer for 7-10 years (whatever that range actually means) but his grammar was atrocious. Its obvious that he had ulterior motives now that I look back at it.

And completely oblivious to all this, I wrote a reply with why the AI's site sucks, so I gave him exactly what he wanted: ways to improve his own stuff.

I'll be more careful from now on with these types of posts.

 

Can we have an AI Shills Big BBQ Cook-out thread? I'll bring buns and mustard.

 

I don't think you could marinate them enough to be edible.

 

We use AI every day, even if you don't want to admit it you ALL use AI in your writing all the time. That's what Spelling check, Grammar check and auto correct are. You drove to a cafe to write your novel... did use GPS to get there that's AI. You ordered a book on Amazon or you looked up a video on YouTube to help with improve your writing, sure the content you got was from humans, the algorithm that suggested it to you was AI.

AI is not going anywhere, I think acknowledge where it can be and should be used will help regulate it, saying you must never touch AI or you will be branded with a Scarlet Letter among the writing community will not stop it's use, just exclude the writing community from the conversation about it's use, and that is what I fear.

 

While I understand your point, the level of programming between chaptgpt and your GPS are dramatically different. There is no machine learning with your GPS. Spelling and grammar checking are hard coded rules, not machine learning. So you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

No. The opposite in fact.

I'm saying DON'T put all fruit in the same basket.

"I will never use AI" is saying "I will never eat fruit" while biting into an apple.

And even if the view is "apples are okay but oranges are bad" is still pretty close minded, maybe writers feel oranges shouldn't be used in a meal but maybe can we at least discuss if they can be used as dessert. Maybe writers feel the flesh of the orange is bad, but can we at least discuss if the peel can be used for zest or decoration.

Saying 'never eat fruit, and anyone who does will be banned' is throwing out apples, oranges, bananas, pineapples, kiwi and tomatoes, and all other fruits and all their possible uses.

My point is AI is NOT one thing, and it has countless uses, and as it develops even more uses might come. But the "I will never use it" and the "You will be banned if you touch it" crowd are exiling themselves from really important conversations about what is and isn't an appropriate use of technology that WILL be (and is) a big part of our lives.

 

And I feel so passionately about it, not out of love of the technology but respectful fear of it.

Every time a technology of this level entered society those who embraced it or found a way to use it have thrived (or at least survived) and those who said they would never touch it died off. When my parents entered the workforce all the people who didn't want to use Computers disappeared, when I entered the workforce all the people who didn't want to learn the internet disappeared. I do not want that to be human writers.

AI isn't new, it's simply next.

We can either be part of the conversation on how it should be used, or we can let non-creatives make those decisions. We only have a few rounds where people will care what human writers think, once the technology is more advance, more widespread, more mainstream, we're out of the conversation all together. Now is the time when we get to decide how it will be used, if we miss this shot we won't get a second one.

 

You paint a bleak picture. Are you suggesting that the genuine expression of human creativity will “disappear” unless it embraces AI?

No, I can’t agree with that. Storytelling is at the heart of what it means to be human, and has been for millennia. I don’t accept that human writers are in danger of “dying off” unless they jump on the AI bandwagon.

Your analogies to computers and the internet are spurious. Computers and the internet are tools to complete tasks. Creating art is not a task. It’s a uniquely human endeavour, drawing from our imaginations, experiences, deepest thoughts and feelings, who we are. It comes from the soul, you know?

Be not afraid. Express yourself!

 

AI is a very broad term and it refers to a very big variety of different technologies.

A decision-tree is considered an AI and its really, really old. And I mean, the concept was invented in 1963. Programmers used it to make the "computer players" in video games. But it has other uses too.

The kind of AI people have problems with are the likes of LLMs and Stable Diffusion models that have the potential to completely replace humans. An LLM has the potential to evolve and become very autonomous. Its already happening. Look at the software engineering market and Devin. The Devin AI can do what programmers have been doing for decades just by a text prompt.

And yes, that is to say that we all use some form of AI. But arguing that we should accept LLMs just because other primitive forms of AI exists doesn't really make sense. Why? Because AI models technologically differ and must therefore be judged on a case-to-case basis. I consider modern AI to be a threat to human creativity. Anyone who thinks that I'm going to start using ChatGPT or Bard or whatever for my writing just because I use the YouTube search bar is gravely mistaken.

That's the way I do things anyway because that's what I think is right. You're welcome to do things differently though. We live in a free world and we do have a lot of freedom, at least for things like this.

By the way, the YouTube AI algorithm for video suggestion can also be argued to be harmful. Its made to maximise enjoyment and therefore dopamine production. That's why people get addictions and other harmful conditions from social media.

 

The creative markets are quite different though because machinery and computers simplified jobs that were laborious and boring. Should creative writing be simplified in the same way?

Personally, I don't see why we must think in such a binary, black-and-white way. Suggesting that writers who don't use AI in their art will die off and have no place in the world feels wrong. I see no reason as to why AI-assisted writers and "traditional" writers who don't use AI can't co-exist in creative markets. The very skilled writers don't need AI anyway. They might choose to use it but they don't need it.

It will change the market someday, sure. But not in such a severe way that you won't be able to put a book out there without going to an LLM.

Now, if there is ever a market that is made of "writers" who write the vast majority of their story using AI and make little to no "manual contribution", I won't want anything to do with them. Part of my reading enjoyment comes from admiration for the writer who was able to put together thousands of words with just their mind.

 

Do you want to have this conversation? Like really? Because I would LOVE to, in fact that is what I want the writing community to actual do, but most are too afraid to do it (at least honestly).

You and many creatives say "art comes from the soul" and the question is.... does it?
Or even more importantly... if it does, does that matter?

There are countless literary discussions and debates where a piece of art is discussed and people interpret in many different ways, often ways the artist did not intend, and the creative community says "that's okay" if people get something from art even something the artist didn't intend it's still meaningful.

Okay... so if a human views AI art, and "feels something" or get some kind of value experiencing it are their feelings invalid?

 

Can we stop with this... no where anyone says you MUST use ChatGPT, if you never ever ever want to use ChatGPT more power to you (it and other open ai things can do stuff you are probably unaware of but you do you)

But you already admit you DO use some AI.

However there are publishing companies and many writing communities that say (without thinking) that if you use AI at any point in the writing process you will banned for life. That is what I have a problem, it short sighted, and creates a secondary writing community for those who DO and DON'T use it.

Since AI is already being accepted more and more in mainstream life, it's already in schools, there are kids (future writers), for whom incorporating AI into their writing is going to be part of their norm. THEY WON'T BE ACCEPTED by the AI IS ALL BAD writing communities we have now, so they're going to join the USE AI for everything "writing" communities.

My hope would be to have reasonable discussions on when and how is it okay to use AI. Personally I don't think you should use it to write actual content, but I can see its use in research, outlining, brainstorming and other things. Now not everyone agrees with how I think AI can and should be used... that's okay, that's the point, let's keep the conversation going, let's stay in the talks, let's set the boundaries,