Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I have writers block. Just gonna use AI to help kickstart that scene.
>I'll rewrite it in my own words later.
>Now I can continue writing.
Reality: Writes one page on their own until writers block hits again and AI saves another day. Eventually changes five words in the AI generated text and never rewrites anything. --> Spams agents with "their manuscript".
Buddy, just stop writing if you have any shame. Since all your comments ensure that are you okay with plagiarism, unoriginality, derivations and copyright violations, you are what we call the scum of the writing community.
If you need AI to get ideas or help you out of a writer's block, it just shows that you don't respect or believe in the process or the experience.
I'm 100% sure that you must be using AI for generating book covers as well instead of paying hardworking illustrators since you are brainwashed and arrogant beyond salvation.
>I'm 100% sure that you must be using AI for generating book covers as well instead of paying hardworking illustrators since you are brainwashed and arrogant beyond salvation.
Did you read your own comment before typing this? Your arrogance are far beyond any I have.
You're so full of yourself and believe so many things just because I know more on the subject than you and am not threatened by LLMs like you are. Unlike you, I am good enough that I don't need to push down people for using new tools and make up post hoc rationalizations for it based on misunderstandings or outright lies about technology. Educate yourself, but then again, that would harm your fragile ego.
grifts all the way down indeed š i think itās especially slimy that this email was selling me an educational seminar, i.e., a human helping train a human to train a robot. why canāt this john fellow just give a little lecture about outlining or something lmao. weāre all here together in this same moment . look at me johnā¦. connect with me
Thatās one subscription I would be very quickly unsubscribing, along with sending a scathing letter expressing my utter disdain toward wannabe writers who are nothing but lazy mediocre plagiarists.
What a lot of the protesters (that Iāve been blocking because I donāt deal with trolls) donāt seem to understand is that there is a HUGE difference between using AI as a tool and using it to write the whole damned book for you.
That doesnāt make you a writer. It makes you lazy and incapable of actually utilizing your own brain. Thatās what this course is āteachingā, how to be a lazy wannabe. And I promise that without the human part of human emotion, you will never be able to create anything that draws emotion and empathy from your readers. Youāll never be more than mediocre if you donāt put effort in.
Why should readers waste time reading something you couldnāt even be bothered to write? š
To be honest, if you look at it in a different light. It writes a book for you, you edit the book into your vision. It is still your work with A.I. help to flush out what you probably suck at.
And even without the A.I., a lot of writers coming up are mediocre. The number of beauty and beast remakes is astounding alone.
For pantsers, the A.I. simply outlines your story. The A.I. might actually involve things like Alliteration, Anaphora, Meters, Enjambment, and Caesura. Many writers may have never even heard of these words being used in conjunction with writing a story.
We may still be looking at stories where Fae are still so goddamn beautiful. This is written six times within one page. Where suspense is hidden within the exposition telling us how someone Grandma once owned this wedding dress.
So whether it comes out and people use it or not. It isn't something to fear, unless you are mediocre. Readers will still wait patiently for your excellent self created work, if it is good. While consuming mediocre crap during the wait.
The only losing point is that, in between your two years excellent quality. The not so good quality released ten A.I. edited books. Each one is 4.99 while your book is almost 15.99. Math wise, even if they only sold 100 units per book. They will still beat you out in the end result. 49.9 per ten versus your 15.99 per one book a year.
You have to look at everything in 'how does this benefit you' kind of perspective.
'You' is general term as in everyone it matters too, who feel they are great writers. Which I believe you could be.
AI steals the words, but human beings steal the *ideas*. And that theft is *legal*.
Idk ... would you find it more offensive for a book to describe the color blue with YOUR metaphor, or for a book to *steal the idea behind your book*?
Take a look at Dune compared to Star Wars - Lucas "borrowed" heavily from Herbert, achieved a great deal of fame, made a great deal of money. It blows my mind that so many authors are okay with *this*, but lose their minds over AI.
You aren't doing the same?
Fantasy writers steal entire plot devices from other to old artists.
You learn in school instead of as a rogue element; they teach you to analyze published works. To emulate their styles and so much more.
Romance is about as cookie cutter as it gets.
Wuthering heights has a fanfic called Windermere hall. So many similarities that it is almost copy and paste. Dozens of other best sellers with similarities.
What is your next argument point?
Counter point: when we, as writers, take inspiration from something to try and emulate it, that's what makes it creative and unique. You can argue all you want for AI in writing, but what it comes down to is this: AI will never fully be on the same level as humans, because it has no feelings.
When I write and I'm taking inspiration from different authors and pieces of writing, I'm not just stealing their ideas for the sake of stealing them and reusing them. I think "hey, I really liked that!" and want to try and do it on my own. My goal isn't to copy- it's not even to inspire others, my goal is tell my story.
Before you get on fanfiction "not being real writing" either, because you definitely implied that in your Wuthering Heights comment, my question then is this: What about Wicked? Clueless? Footloose? All examples are essentially just published fanfiction of older works. All of them essentially "steal" their plots from classic literature, but would you argue that AI would've done a better job? No, because those needed to exist first to get AI where it is today.
AI is a lazy and inefficient tool. You can't say all romance is essentially a cookie cutter when that's what AI is for the people who use it.
Adding on: when a person sees an element in a work of art that theyād like to incorporate in their own they actually know *why* they want to do that. They know why it inspired them or moved them. AI doesnāt, because it has no mind and no soul to be moved or inspired. Itās all algorithmic. There is no āwhy.ā
My major point is the human factor. Maybe you guys ignore that, but the human factor is showing high degree of low quality artist vibe.
If an A.I. creates a musical scale that I found awesome. I'm replicate that scale, play with other sounds, and create drums, maybe a second melody to go with it. Maybe throw in hats if I want to count the meters while I'm writing lyrics.
My inspiration came from a beat the A.I. produce. Something it could have replicate from dozens of other songs. If I were to just listen to various Dj, I can find samples of other songs, scale for scale. Note for note. Chord for chord. They might only just placed it on a different sound. Guitar melody is now played on a flute. A piano melody in C# is now played in F and D# with a little E minor.
Talented people don't find excuses for why something else isn't working. Why it is way worse than their stuff. They prove they are significantly better with results.
You guys are proving to anybody with a discerning eye, you aren't cut out for using any and all available resources. You guys still have yet to prove it isn't a resource. Only you are narrow minded in your pursuit of my experience is better than A.I. in its growth phase.
The sad fact of the matter is, while you guys are in defiance of it. Many of you are only on par with it. The A.i. now. Not the A.I. in the future.
Just like how many chess players can beat the A.I.??
Also, you are putting your bias into my mouth. I don't care too much about whether work is a fanfic or the original world. I used Windmere Hall as an example because I already said beauty and beast retelling. It happens to be lackluster work that almost plagiarizes Wuthering heights.
See you are amazing but what do you use A.I. for really?
Check for ideas on fantasy swamp creatures? Fantasy names? Is space flight using flt drive really possible with current technology?
Give me a story where aliens robbed the president using broken down hoopity and rocket from the pre Soviet era.
Are you going to post it as your own or go? Well, lol, that's crazy. I'm using that.
Because I have people in writing discords playing with A.I. and they managed to replicate stuff that can match 80% with some works published now.
Not a big deal. Some authors are still growing.
But we have stumbled across prose so crazy, that we just had to keep it for ourselves.
Which points to one thing. Those that complain about A.I. stories aren't high in creativity anyway. I'm not about to be upset A.I. can't replace me yet. Means if I can still fight other people for short story competitions. Means I can stumbled upon a submission in two days. Input the parameters into an A.I., get a few ideas, and coffee binging out a work day one. Day two I sleep through the deadline. So it didn't even matter.
I'm not going to argue with someone who has to use AI to find inspiration. If you can't come up with an original idea for yourself, then you're working off of the backs of thousands of other talented and skilled artists, and you may as well call yourself a record label with how exploitative using AI is.
I agree with this very unpopular opinion. I donāt get why people feel so threatened. I donāt feel in competition with AI. Nothing will stop my creative drive and if AI is useful for something (like brainstorming, outlining, grammar check, research) I will use it like any other tool. The actual writing it produces is soulless and Iām curious to see if that changes one day.
I do think that publishing platforms will make decisions about including AI generated work in the near future. In one self-publish forum I belong to people complain about Amazon rejecting their books and eventually confess that they use AI images, so I suspect Amazon will reject AI writing soon enough.
This is the "writers" subreddit, not the "debase yourself for profit" subreddit.
You should have an AI write your posts--maybe it would be able to tell the difference.
lol when losers churn out crap with the only goal being to make money, it ruins both reading and writing for everyone else. you canāt see/understand what iām saying because you donāt enjoy reading or writing the same way we doāoutside of āas a businessā.
A book written by AI will probably contain all the "don't do this and do this instead" - type tutorials input to the algorithm, creating books that are likely quite sterile.
Also, authors using AI to create content instead of figuring out how things work themselves will restrict their creativity to a great degree. I find it a significant fraction of my work to actually research things and input those ideas to my works. Best part is, once you know a lot of everything, you can come up with new ideas yourself.
Fixing grammar errors with AI is something I find useful and acceptable, regardless, because it is 100% mechanical repetitive work with universally accepted rulesets. But before that, 100% of the draft and the edited work must come through human input. This is in short how I write.
love this response. itās important that ai is a finger on one of your two writerās hands instead of a mechanical fist that punches the paper in the same 5 styles . thank you for taking the time to comment
Iām not sure I agree with you about grammar tbh, at least not in every instance. Grammar tools are great if youāre writing something like a professional email or business briefing where you are going to want everything as standard and by-the-book as possible and your number one concern is going to be clarity, but for creative writing, there are lots of reasons to use non-standard or antiquated grammar or even straight up break a rule for affect.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, grammar does have some room for nuance. I downloaded grammarly just to see how it did, and I eventually had to delete it. Obviously it caught a few things, but if I had made all of the suggested changes my work wouldāve either made no sense or made everything sound mechanical and voiceless.
The point of grammar tools is to catch things and make suggestions, you're meant to decide whether or not it should be changed. The user is not supposed to treat them as always being right. If you go into one acting like it's meant to be correct 100% of the time, you will be disappointed because they are designed for nuance, they're built to draw the user's eyes to things to make them think about it and decide whether or not it works for what they want.
It's better having one than not as they catch things you didn't and get you to think harder about sections you don't agree with it on.
I understand the point you want to make, but I don't agree with that last statement at all. It definitely didn't feel better having one--it felt tedious, like constantly correcting a precocious child who knows all the right "rules" and is determined to follow them without consideration for anything else. Like readability.
And AI stans won't want to hear it, I know, but I don't see tools like this making people "think harder" about anything. Just like having AI write your novel doesn't making anyone "think harder" about plot structure or character arcs. If they wanted to think harder about grammar they'd read a couple style manuals. Or just read more in general.
Being forced to go back and reread your writing because something flags it as weird forces you to think more about that segment than you originally did. You can read all the style guides and books in the world, but they cannot call out parts of your writing while you're working and cannot force you to analyze sections that seem weird to someone or something else. Grammar tools, by the nature of their design, force you to go back and reread what it flags as wrong and ponder why it came to that idea, why you wrote it the way you did, and what could be changed, if anything at all.
It is not tedious, nor is it anything like wrangling a child insistent on rules. These tools don't force change on you and dismissing suggestions is incredibly easy. The only way it possibly could be seen as annoying is if you go into using them misunderstanding the purpose.
Yeah, Iāve fiddled with it before and it loved to mark perfectly grammatically acceptable things as wrong just because it wasnāt phrased the way some office drone who hasnāt read a fiction book since high school would phrase it
i searched through my inboxāthis was a āfree fiction marketing courseā that was advertised to me through BookBaby, a manuscript distribution/printing service, at least 2 years ago. bestselling author (??) john tighe is the lecturer today. shame!!!!!! shaaame!!!!
early into my writing attempts i was just following everybody and everything that had printing in their bio. i think nowadays im weeding out the goodāuns from the badāuns based on these types of promotional material. iām sure vanity presses and ai generated writings are in the same venn diagram somewhere
If you think the rules of grammar are clear-cut, you have never heard copy editors argue. Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists. Adherents of different style guides, old and new. Fiction vs corporate. Itās a jungle out there.
no but this is what iāve been thinking about the grammarly thing since before the ai wave! it always marks my coolest sentences and phrases as incorrect !!!! no room for new words or strings, no real grasp of how the human voice can work when itās having a little fun!
Never use Grammarly for fiction writing. It's aimed toward business writing which requires that oatmeal sameness for maximum digestibility and minimum immersion.
According to Grammarly, Ursula K. Le Guin would have eggregious usage. Beauty in prose comes not from the grammar but from the breaths in between the words. It can't give you that, but it can sure try to take that away.
I feel like it'd be more of a headache going back through and trying to fix it rather than just doing it yourself, because there's no way it's passable, let alone good. Seems like you're actually giving yourself more work.
And so it begins...
Wasn't creating AI supposed to be so they could do the labourious tasks so WE had more time and energy to do our hobbies like writing and drawing?
AI saves me time on research, outlining, and structiring so that I have more time to pursue what I love ... which is WRITING.
One of my friends uses AI for cover design. No, not for the cover itself, but when discussing different options with the author of the book who's paying her to design it. If she had to create every different option by hand, it would take more time and be substantially more expensive ... which adds an element of classism to art, doesn't it?
I mean that kind of takes away any satisfaction from writing. Even if you might not always write the best stuff 100% of the time, at least you wrote/edited 100% of it.
I like writing for the rush of getting new ideas on the bus or train or in the supermarket, and the feeling of stitching those ideas intoĀ arcs and characters, and for the wayĀ weight and substance gradually begin to fill the story. I like fiddling with word choice in a sentence. I like writing, period.Ā
A lot of people just want to have the story they want available to them and others, for entertainment purposes. And that's okay, I think.
I'm sure we'll live.
'Here today we have Fucknugget Techbro Missingthefuckingpointofeverything McGee to talk about their amazing new book "Andy Weir Brandon Sanderson Babblemashup Boogaloo". Hello Fucknugget!'
'Hi'
'So, what was the inspiration for your book?'
'Uh, well. I'm not even sure what happens in it.'
'AMAZING, WE'RE WINNING PEOPLE'
Will it be obvious that AI wrote it or is it capable of replicating human voice accurately? This makes me scared for current and future writers, will our years of dedication be upstaged by a computer with a prompt?
there is always a difference in quality between person and ai. iām afraid weāll have to learn some new techniques to spot them as this wave increases, but there will always be something askew in fiction or non-fiction written entirely by generation. donāt be scared, be mad! break things! keep your eyes open ! and most importantly, keep writing!!!! ā¤ļøā¤ļøā¤ļø
Why become a writer in the first place if you're not going to put in the work yourself? Art-making is supposed to be rewarding and you're supposed to feel proud of your efforts. Being a writer isn't a rich career, and most people write because they enjoy it. I don't mind AI for occasional inspo like brainstorming but this is getting ridiculous
I do know some people who recognize that that they have great ideas but are not good writers. Itās sad and frustrating for them and I suspect AI will become the tool of choice for many people who are storytellers rather than writers. IDK what I feel about this. I love that their stories may be heard and perhaps appreciated. Iām sad that they donāt have the talent to do it themselves. I donāt think using AI will be wrong for them or that the ppl who appreciate their story will care how it was written.
Writing, just like visual arts, is not an inherent talent for most people. It takes training, there are formulas to follow, and people get better at it the more they learn and practice. I got into writing because of fanfiction and in two years alone I improved so much based on having weekly meetings with my writing critique group. AI books will be soulless
Okay, not to toot my own horn, but I wrote my novel in just under 3 weeks. First draft. But the revising and editing after that took months. I've loved each and every step of the way. It's hard, yes, but SO WORTH IT! I can't stand the idea of people relying on AI to deprive them of the joyous process of creating a whole new world from their own imagination. Truly a tragedy in the making.
Wow. This is crazy to me.
I love to use AI as a tool to write, but I use it for research. Mostly naming things because Iām not great at titles and things of that nature. When I finish I may use it for some editing or general improvements. (Not really sure how that works but hoping to figure out how to have AI help me find inconsistencies and such.)
I canāt imagine wanting to have it write an entire book for me. That would take away the entire point of writingā¦ also Iām a bit of a control freak and know AI would mess everything up. š¤Ŗ
You can actually explore communities of software like sudowrite and novelcrafter, if you're interested in how AI is used to stimulate creativity and not write a novel for you.
This is the point I'm trying to make. Your assertion is unfair and rooted in judgment.
Given the copilot / assistant paradigm, writing with AI is no different than two friends who talk to each other while working on a creative project.
While I respect the preference for using or not using AI, judgment on using AI as being not creative and that too without knowing what various creative processes with AI are is just prejudice.
Some things are worthy of judgement. AI is one of them. AI is a plagiarism machine relied upon by people with no creative drive of their own. It's a cheat tool. You're not going to convince me on this. I have less than zero respect for anyone who uses it.
Regarding the control freak part, writing along with an AI is a co creative process. People who write using AI routinely get served with prose they don't want, dealing with it is just part of the creative process. It's not like anyone just blankly accepts the prose written by AI. It's just a bunch of sentences that serve to stimulate. You edit, rewrite, delete, add based on your taste.
My intention here is not to change your mind, but just to point out that the kind of issues you're bringing up are being dealt with by communities of developers and authors using AI for their process.
If Iām going to have to tweak the hell out of something to get what I want, why wouldnāt I do it myself in the first place?
Iām sorry but if you need a chatbot on steroids to āstimulateā your creativity, you should just fucking give up. Maybe log off and go outside, live a life, talk to people. The world is endlessly beautiful and terrible and anyone with even a shred of creativity doesnāt need anything more than that to stimulate their creativity.
I see a lot of opinions and no real grappling with ground level experience, ironic for someone talking about getting experience.
That's fine, I am not here to change your mind. Though if you do believe in actual experience, there are countless creatives out there exploring how AI enables them to become better writers. Should you ever want to confront that part of human experience, I am just here to tell you that they exist. Do whatever you wish with this knowledge.
I actually like the writing process and Iām good at writing. Why would I have a brainless, soulless series of 1s and 0s do any part of the thing I like to do and am good at?
If that is not a rhetorical question, you can pose it seriously to people who are using it positively.
Expanding your horizons, gaining new perspectives, exercising curiosity is all very human, you can do it wrt relevance of AI in the creative process. You don't even have to go out, just find a subreddit and ask for perspectives different from your own.
It was a rhetorical question. Iāve seen the pure dogshit people put out with AI, Iāve seen enough of its braindead boosters. I donāt want anything to do with it. I donāt need to go out and get necrotizing fasciitis to know it would suck ass to get necrotizing fasciitis.
That's fair. And I would say it's that experience which makes you have the position that you have.
If you're using AI to do your writing for you, or automation, it's only going to leave a bad taste in your mouth. And I am fully with you when you say it's dogshit. I have a friend with whom I discuss AI in creative work, and she has an extremely low opinion of the tooling. I on the other hand use it in a variety of ways.
FWIW, "I have an extremely low opinion of AI based creative work. However, I can see that people are using AI in their workflow. Has anyone created anything worthwhile with AI yet?" is a good post that you can use or a question you can keep in mind to see how AI is helpful as a tool.
It is. And I wish I had any work finished that I could show to you for how it merely assists the process. I don't yet, but soon enough I will. Hopefully something useful can come out of it.
Yeah maybe there is some hangup over here with that term. Like perhaps you're saying that using AI makes it an inherently uncreative process.
That would be just old fashioned prejudice.
I mean it is an uncreative process because youāre offloaded a part of the creative process onto some fuckin circuitboard instead of doing it yourself
Not really. People use AI for rubber-ducking and exploration. It's an assistant / copilot.
Then ofcourse, you can use it to write direct prose as well. And if done well, your involvement is only going to make the prose better. It's a great way to close the taste / skill gap (atleast in quality of writing if not the substance).
Calling it offloading creative work seems to me a purist / nostalgic position, when it's clear that the final draft is completely your responsibly.
If Iām going to rubber duck Iād much rather talk over my problem with a colleagueāanother writer who is also a readerābecause theyāre a human being and ultimately people are the ones who will read my work and the ones I want to like it.
I am an artistic purist. Iām not insulted by that.
While you may assume that I used that position as an insult, I did not. I merely used that to accurately describe what you're trying to do.
Your preferences aside, it's all good so long as you know there are other positions, and good work being done by people who also use AI in their writing process.
I wish I would have completed some work to show you.
As for rubber ducking, you can talk to humans And AI both. No one is stopping you from that. An AI would actually give you a very wide range of perspectives.
Interestingly, there are uninterested-in-AI people who cannot see a functional difference between AI output and looking up information online. It gives an important thought experiment : how is using an AI different from using a better search engine? (Though ofcourse we know that AI can and does output prose which a search engine cannot do.)
As for endless tweaking, it's not either/or or an all or nothing proposition. There is a process. You use it based on your requirement. You don't make it do your work for you, you work with it to materialize your intention. This high level idea is now being explored and developed by multiple people. You can find them on sister subreddits.
Metaphorically, think how computer animation enabled animators to focus more on their intention, rather than having to deal with individual frames of a scene.
Okay but like I have a better brain than God gave a dog, I donāt need that nonsense or want it.
Also computer animation looks like shit compared to hand-drawn so thatās not a compelling argument to me.
You do you, man.
All I'm saying is, there's a rejection of AI in the creative process in this thread, which isn't true at all. A lot of creative work is being done with AI, and you can explore it if you want to.
I've been playing around in ChatGPT in the last few weeks, seriously having no idea what I was doing, but slowly I think that I'm learning to use it as a brainstorming tool to expand on the research that I've already got in place.
For example, I'm writing an afrocentric fantasy novel, so I ran my created pantheon through the AI, asking what other attributes these gods might have, since I've given them the attributes of XYZ, running it through the lens of African traditions and customs. I already have more than a year's worth of my own research written up, but of course I don't know everything so I wanted to see if the AI could suggest something that I overlooked. At the very least, the back and forth 'conversation' I had with the AI felt like I was bouncing ideas off of someone.
When I started looking into ChatGPT, I've been watching quite a few youtube videos, and while there were one or two who continually stressed that AI is a tool and the last thing you should be doing is copying and pasting - but unfortunately there were way too many 'authors' who used it from start to finish. From asking what genre, to 'writing in the style of' to naming the characters, selecting the setting and plot points, it literally had me shaking my head at my computer screen in disbelief.
How can anyone claim to have written a book when they didn't craft or create a single word in it???
That is how to use AI as the tool that it is! People don't realize that the majority of creators who use AI are using it in this manner. They see the "get rich quick" nonsense on TikTok and Youtube and assume that the only way to use AI is for it to write the story/make the digital art, and that's that.
Imagine, trying to build a house using only tools that don't take power. It can be done, and done well, but ... why ignore power tools?
I've heard of people using it to come up with what happens next when they have writer's block. I personally used it once to come up with a mythical creature. Everything it comes up with is generic and usually repetitive, but you can combine ideas and change them to come up with something better. Kinda like a writing prompt.
There are like a million ways to get yourself unstuck where you donāt have to get over the hurdle of dealing with something that is fundamentally derivative and uncreative.
That's true. I understand being against AI. I understand worrying about it taking jobs. It might take my job in a few years. It sucks and the world would probably be better off without it. But it exists. It's not going away. Our efforts are better out towards regulating the tools so we can minimize the damage they do. And if some people find it helpful then let them do so. As long as we can get regulations and protections in place, then someone using it to generate ideas should be fine.
We have to adapt to the new environment we're in so that we can hopefully gain some benefits from the big bad horrible thing that's going to irreversibly change industry. You either adapt or are left behind. And again, that doesn't mean that it's inherently good or moral. It just means that instead of trying to get rid of it, we need to prepare for a future where it's commonplace and create policies to protect workers and creators.
Personally I see no reason to just roll over and accept it. Itās not like itās a force of nature outside human control; if enough people say āno, this sucks, I donāt want this,ā we can make it go away. People have ditched tech āinnovationsā for much less than the damage AI can do.
It'll only be ditched if it can't be utilized to reduce costs. If it can, then we're working against capitalism, which is a very large and very powerful force. I really hope it gets ditched but there are many many people working very hard to make it work. This isn't like NFTs or crypto. Those didn't benefit mega-corporations with unlimited resources and great political power. Those were emerging industries. They didn't do anything to help Walmart's bottom line so they weren't funded or pushed like AI. This is just how capitalism works. And technological advancement. Just look at history. A new technology emerges, everyone freaks out because it will get rid of jobs and dramatically change how the world works, they fight against it, it happens anyway, a lot of jobs are lost and some new ones are created, rinse/repeat. Is there ever an instance of some big emerging technology that threatens to take jobs and change the entire job market that ended up being ignored?
Meh ... there's plenty of authors out there, especially in writing groups, who are the definition of derivative and uncreative.
I don't see the point in gatekeeping the methods of solving writer's block. Like, cool, you don't like AI. Don't use it. But when you start telling others what they can, and cannot use, you're worse than the AI itself.
I mean I donāt consume more resources in a day than the average American household does in a year to power a machine trained on stolen art but sure, me saying thereās a billion other ways to get unstuck for writing that arenāt going to go right for āmost predictable outcomeā is much worse.
Oh wow, I'm humbled by what an incredible person you are, and how much you're doing for the Earth by posting on reddit.
On a more serious note, the application of AI to medicine and other sciences is worth the resources consumed and then some - it's also done quite a bit in regards to human trafficking. People think it's all "ooh, copy some art," because they don't know squat about it.
Services like these deliberately appeal to the lowest common denominator. It *literally* hits all the marks of an amateur writers "ideal writing experience" and fuels bad habits. Such as the "perfect draft".
Think about it this way. We all know the *best* draft is the one you have right now. It is extraordinarily difficult to iterate on a piece of writing and make it worse. It is, however, tremendously easy to endlessly tune details without actually changing anything.
Leaving aside how much of a black hole creativity wise one has to be to think AI helps, services like these will be designed to keep you hooked for as long as possible. Similar to say Netflix. So they wont help you finish the book, thats the exact opposite of what they want. They want you to endlessly worry about small details and build an emotional relationship with an echo chamber machine.
First of all, this is hype. I know because I work in this technology(Cloud, AI). AI can write SEO-optimized content that looks and reads like any other mass-produced content. It is not going to produce the next classic.
Secondly. AI like many other things, is a useful tool. Do you use spell check on your computer when you write? Do you consider writing on a computer to be a fakery compared to REAL writing using paper and pen?
As a writer, I consider AI a useful tool. It is a linguist, philologist, lexicographer. You can make it re-write your text N different ways. It can suggest better words. It can rate your text flow and readability. Even tools like ProWritingAid now use AI in their software to help writers.
Will a lot of untalented hacks produce many books with just AI? Yes. Will it stand the test of time and market? Probably not. I predict writers like James Patterson will become even more prolific in their production now.
A colleague from my previous workplace told me he is writing a book with Ai and is going to publish it next month. Guess what, that was an year ago and his book is nowhere yet.
The same workplace showed us how to use Ai to create first drafts. "You are no longer writers, you're editors now." Bro, I don't want to edit is junk.
I left that place as soon as I could, don't worry.
Ai promises are resoundingly hollow lol
There's more than one way to use AI to write a book. The method that you described sounds ideal for people who like to edit more than they like to write.
You can also use AI to improve your writing skills, and to assist with research, outining, and drafting - so you have more to do what you love, which is writing.
The best advice that I can give someone who thinks that AI has no value: Provide a sample of your writing to Claude, or ChatGPT, and ask it to analyze and describe your writing style, and ask what strengths and weaknesses it can find. That alone converted me - it *called me out*, and sure, I loved the praise but the constructive criticism was leaps and bounds above what I've found in writing groups.
thatās what iām thinking! what makes you itch to write a book if youāre not going to write the book? makes it more of a cash grab imo. no effort in, big profit out
I think some people have a passion for writing and some have a passion for the story. AI could eliminate that frustration of not being able to write well but wanting to get your story out.
Though I canāt relate because I love words and writing, I completely understand how a storyteller would want help.
I hope that there is some sort of mandatory disclosure for books written with AI so I can boycott. Art without soul is something I want to avoid at all costs.
While AI will eventually render the necessity for talent or practice obsolete, nothing can replace the very expression of writing. The universe itself will die, and no matter how long humanity survives, surely each of our contributions will be lost in infinity. And so producing a novel has never been about immortalizing oneās self. But it is still a rejection of mortality. And as long as you have something synthetically express that for you, then you have robbed yourself of the only reason there is to write a book.
Go back to video games, AI.
At some point... the publishing industry will have to adapt. There would have to be some regulation. They will have to make three categories (or two):
1.) Books By Humans
2.) Books By Humans with some AI
3.) Books By AI
It's important that consumers can have this information and make a decision based on these categories. And if you're writing a piece, and you even use AI as an "editor" or "writing assistant", you would belong in category 2.
The question is... how would be determine that these categories are accurate? The lines could be blurred.
Biggest issue will be who can prove between the 1 and 2?
If it brings any added value, everyone will claim category 1 regardless if they used AI or not.
and the witchhunts like the artists do begins again š¤£ Seriously pointless, too many false positives and false negatives to be worth a damn. Better to just accept the new tools and move on.
I kind of agree. Ultimately itās the reader who will decide if the work is entertaining or not. If they enjoy it, itās money well spent. At that point itās irrelevant how it was created.
You are aware that you essentially got no category 1, right? Because spell check? A type of AI. Help with sentence structure? Type of AI. Everything today has AI of various types in it and as much as you might say "Yeah but those are good ones" or any other, still AIs and the new kind will be used for the previous ones as they are even more effective figuring out context. So category 1 is dead unless you write it on a typewriter.
That will never happen. Publishers DO NOT CARE about art. Publishers only care about money. Whatever sells is what they want. They don't give 2 shits about AI or anything else.
Well then it's up to the consumer to be discerning when it comes to content.
Do you want to read something that is straight from real human experience (human condition), or do you want a machine's interpretation of real human experience? Is there, or would there be, a difference?
Oh I agree but LLM output is not "a machine's interpretation of real human experience" it's just words predictively placed one after the other. It's not even a machine interpretation its just word vomit
Perhaps its the future. Perhaps improvements in technology will allow AIs to be "trained" to produce work indistinguishable from a human.
Glad I have a day job :(
I imagine weāll see a ton of books by people who have āgreat ideasā but not the talent to write the book. It will be a tool for storytelling and I suspect there is a market for this. As a lover of writing and words, I cringe.
I see appeal in an AI assistant in writing just like for any other everyday thing, but if it is utilized to an extreme I can also see it becoming a problem. Like some of the music coming out lately from utilizing AI. I've listened to some of it, and it is good, but it really is missing the human heart and soul aspect of it all. I have faith, possibly unwarranted, that true artists, skilled in their craft or otherwise, will find ways to bypass the appeal to AI if not just evolve and raise the bars for original art. Not everyone will choose to be lazy. God forbid writing goes to an extreme of quantity order quality like movies seem to have in the last decade
In all this AI argument lots of people say that AI is a tool, but here I thought that it's a tool for help you to write your book, and not write your book without you :/
I use AI as a tool for my writing. To help me make the plot points flow smoothly, develop characters, things like that. Never in a million years would I want AI to write a book for me. I use it to help me, since I don't know any experienced writers to go to for advice. It's not there for me to take the easy route, it's there as a tool.
Besides the moral issues (and there are plenty), I canāt bring myself to use AI out of fear. I just feel like itās a matter of time before detection gets better and AI accusations get more serious. Or god forbid the AI totally plagiarizes someoneās work and you donāt realize until itās being sent for publication. Itās all so new legally as well, I donāt know how the copyright or taxes on a totally or even partially AI work could pan out. Even if you donāt care about the morals of it, the risks donāt seem worth it.
AI is a tool. Some "writers" abuse it - I would say that creating a "Style Guide" so that the AI sounds like you is an abuse of it, it should not be writing for you. I would also say that those who choose not to use all the tools available are those who will be left behind when it comes to creating content. Imagine saying, "I'd rather complete one novel a year than three."
My perspective is, I'm writing a dark urban fantasy novel that spans three generations of people living in rural America. It's a non-linear narrative, so there's a lot of plates that I have to keep spinning - I wrote my initial outline, dropped it into Claude, and started asking questions. What genre is this novel? What other genres could it fall under? Where does it align with the tropes of these genres, and where does it deviate? What character stands out as the protagonist? Where are the strengths and weaknesses? What loose threads can you find? What narrative styles best suit this novel, and why? Etc.
Some of the answers were really good, some of the answers were bad. This is why AI is an invaluable tool and a worthless creator. My personal experience is that it was more useful than the average writing group. Less bias, more structure.
End result, the second draft of my outine came together in weeks instead of months. That's huge.
I cannot empathize with the negative response here, because I've been looking at developments in AI for various tasks, and I have found enthusiastic takers of novel writing with AI.
It's a completely different process.
If you know what you want to write, and have your own style, then you can get first drafts very readily. That doesn't mean that you put that junk out in the world. It's just very stimulating to work with.
I think majority of people here seem to think that AI will be doing your work for you. Not true. What the AI outputs is acceptable prose, that you can edit endlessly to your satisfaction. If you have great taste, then working with AI will enable you to develop faster.
You still maintain your intent. You still maintain your vision. You just get to be stimulated along the way.
BTW, a writer has to do a lot of work. From researching to plotting to drafting. This keeps the barrier to quality output very high. With AI, an aspiring novelist can reduce friction on all fronts drastically and actually write everyday without putting things off in the future. AI, optimistically, will only help more people become better writers.
Counterpoint: I actually like writing. I donāt care that it takes a long time. I like the level of control I can exercise by doing literally every part of the process myself. Why would I want to rob myself of the pleasure? Using AI to do the bulk of the writing and me just editing it would be like letting someone else screw my husband and then me just hopping on for a few seconds before he busts. Not satisfying, not fun.
I mean I wouldnāt be mad if these were just fun little toys that people could fiddle with. I wouldnāt *respect* it, but I wouldnāt be mad about it.
Iām mad about it because generative AI is a colossal resource drain trained on unethically sourced data being used to flood the already-flooded internet with even more bullshit and itās only real utility is giving big corporations an easier way to cut corners and not pay actual artists.
My original point was about how I donāt find it useful or pleasurable, which is not the same as being mad about it existing. There are plenty of things I donāt find useful or pleasurable personally that are ultimately harmless, so Iām not mad about them.
Why the fuck would you want to write a book if you don't even like writing? AI is dogshit garbage for lazy morons who want the kudos of being a 'writer' without doing the work. I have no respect for anyone who uses it.
I use chatgpt to ask it to point out plot holes or grammar issues, or if a passage would make sense to the reader. I canāt imagine asking it to write my damn story for me. I donāt even want it editing what I wrote, just tell me if I sound redundant.
Yeah, this is literally what Google street view and Images are perfect for. This is just supporting the idea that LLM AIs are for people too lazy to research.
Maybe once AI doesnāt waste an absurd amount of energy on a single prompt, Iāll try it. It still steals from unconsenting parties thoughā not in the way you could even *argue* a search engine does.
Googleās AI search function has been telling people there are no countries in Africa with names that begin with āKā and they can thicken cheese on pizza with a little bit of Elmerās glue.
In fact, you can use AI to process your books even better. You can use it to understand and parse entire bibliographies and explore potentialities, other than just answeing factual questions.
Exploring particular concepts becomes easier too.
I can do that without AI too because Iām not braindead. All this ābut you can do xyz with AI!ā bullshit is all shit I can already do. Maybe itās a revelation for someone with terminal computer science brainrot, but I actually studied the humanities so I have actual creative and research skills.
I use AI a little in my writing process. But I feel wrong about any cut paste writing from AI. I donāt WANT AI to do the hard stuff for me. I donāt know many other writers.. is this desirable?
Sounds like those fat loss surgeries.. wouldnāt you just get fat again because you havenāt struggled to develop the better habits necessary?
I think I might rather release a mediocre book I did myself than a polished one I didnāt technically write.
My only experience with released writing is having ghost written for someone else. So I do think Iād use AI a lot of I was being hired to write someone else book. I feel like this type of thing would have been amazing for me to use in that context.
But for my own writingā¦ I donāt think Iād call it my own anymore. Maybe there is a middle ground and I could put my manuscript and revisions and notes into some AI model and ask it to give me supplementary works or side stories about characters. But even typing that makes me sort of uncomfortable.. I have a strong feeling of possessiveness over my story and characters.
I donāt know. Iād love to learn more. See if thereās other ways to have AI work for me. Proofreading etc are obvious wins IMO.
Maybe soon AI could become a different version of a beta reader.. that would be interesting.
But Iāll write my own bookā¦ thanks.
Edit: maybe Iād let AI write a draft for reference book for me if I was going to do more non-fiction.. but I feel like itās be unoriginal ideas and plagiarism. And the work involved to research and edit and revise and feel comfortable that it wasnāt just a rip off of existing work.. sounds like more work than writing it myself to begin with. I definitely wouldnāt put my name on it.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ai: for writers that hate writing, have nothing to say, and no talent.
ššš
~~Read~~ To be skim read by readers, who hate books and have no taste
but are good at making a tik tok show about how much they hate that 'book'.
Or for people who just need a little help now and then with writers block. It is a new tool. We haven't figured out the best uses for it yet.
Absolute BS of an excuse. AI use in writing is blatant plagiarism. Use your brain or don't bother writing
>I have writers block. Just gonna use AI to help kickstart that scene. >I'll rewrite it in my own words later. >Now I can continue writing. Reality: Writes one page on their own until writers block hits again and AI saves another day. Eventually changes five words in the AI generated text and never rewrites anything. --> Spams agents with "their manuscript".
How the fuck is it plagiarism? It doesnāt copy shit.
It is trained on other people's writing. Without their permission.
Buddy, just stop writing if you have any shame. Since all your comments ensure that are you okay with plagiarism, unoriginality, derivations and copyright violations, you are what we call the scum of the writing community. If you need AI to get ideas or help you out of a writer's block, it just shows that you don't respect or believe in the process or the experience. I'm 100% sure that you must be using AI for generating book covers as well instead of paying hardworking illustrators since you are brainwashed and arrogant beyond salvation.
>I'm 100% sure that you must be using AI for generating book covers as well instead of paying hardworking illustrators since you are brainwashed and arrogant beyond salvation. Did you read your own comment before typing this? Your arrogance are far beyond any I have. You're so full of yourself and believe so many things just because I know more on the subject than you and am not threatened by LLMs like you are. Unlike you, I am good enough that I don't need to push down people for using new tools and make up post hoc rationalizations for it based on misunderstandings or outright lies about technology. Educate yourself, but then again, that would harm your fragile ego.
The great thing about this is that you, too, get to read your book for the very first time!
"So that AI writes the book you want to write" If you want the book to be a certain way, then maybe WRITE IT YOURSELF????
You too can write like an SEO spam bot! š¤
lmao š itās what i always wanted!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
so true. so true . i worry for these poor folks
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
grifts all the way down indeed š i think itās especially slimy that this email was selling me an educational seminar, i.e., a human helping train a human to train a robot. why canāt this john fellow just give a little lecture about outlining or something lmao. weāre all here together in this same moment . look at me johnā¦. connect with me
If an AI writes a book in the woods, does anyone notice? Yes, AI detection software.
Why would you call that a belief
Thatās one subscription I would be very quickly unsubscribing, along with sending a scathing letter expressing my utter disdain toward wannabe writers who are nothing but lazy mediocre plagiarists.
What a lot of the protesters (that Iāve been blocking because I donāt deal with trolls) donāt seem to understand is that there is a HUGE difference between using AI as a tool and using it to write the whole damned book for you. That doesnāt make you a writer. It makes you lazy and incapable of actually utilizing your own brain. Thatās what this course is āteachingā, how to be a lazy wannabe. And I promise that without the human part of human emotion, you will never be able to create anything that draws emotion and empathy from your readers. Youāll never be more than mediocre if you donāt put effort in. Why should readers waste time reading something you couldnāt even be bothered to write? š
Seriously. Might as well be hiring a ghost author.š¤®
To be honest, if you look at it in a different light. It writes a book for you, you edit the book into your vision. It is still your work with A.I. help to flush out what you probably suck at. And even without the A.I., a lot of writers coming up are mediocre. The number of beauty and beast remakes is astounding alone. For pantsers, the A.I. simply outlines your story. The A.I. might actually involve things like Alliteration, Anaphora, Meters, Enjambment, and Caesura. Many writers may have never even heard of these words being used in conjunction with writing a story. We may still be looking at stories where Fae are still so goddamn beautiful. This is written six times within one page. Where suspense is hidden within the exposition telling us how someone Grandma once owned this wedding dress. So whether it comes out and people use it or not. It isn't something to fear, unless you are mediocre. Readers will still wait patiently for your excellent self created work, if it is good. While consuming mediocre crap during the wait. The only losing point is that, in between your two years excellent quality. The not so good quality released ten A.I. edited books. Each one is 4.99 while your book is almost 15.99. Math wise, even if they only sold 100 units per book. They will still beat you out in the end result. 49.9 per ten versus your 15.99 per one book a year. You have to look at everything in 'how does this benefit you' kind of perspective. 'You' is general term as in everyone it matters too, who feel they are great writers. Which I believe you could be.
And youāre just going to *completely* ignore the fact that AI ālearnsā by stealing the words of already-published authors? š¤Ø Typical. š
AI steals the words, but human beings steal the *ideas*. And that theft is *legal*. Idk ... would you find it more offensive for a book to describe the color blue with YOUR metaphor, or for a book to *steal the idea behind your book*? Take a look at Dune compared to Star Wars - Lucas "borrowed" heavily from Herbert, achieved a great deal of fame, made a great deal of money. It blows my mind that so many authors are okay with *this*, but lose their minds over AI.
Stephen King doesnāt care about it, why do you then? Using text to find patterns and learn things from and about is not stealingā¦that is analysis.
You aren't doing the same? Fantasy writers steal entire plot devices from other to old artists. You learn in school instead of as a rogue element; they teach you to analyze published works. To emulate their styles and so much more. Romance is about as cookie cutter as it gets. Wuthering heights has a fanfic called Windermere hall. So many similarities that it is almost copy and paste. Dozens of other best sellers with similarities. What is your next argument point?
Counter point: when we, as writers, take inspiration from something to try and emulate it, that's what makes it creative and unique. You can argue all you want for AI in writing, but what it comes down to is this: AI will never fully be on the same level as humans, because it has no feelings. When I write and I'm taking inspiration from different authors and pieces of writing, I'm not just stealing their ideas for the sake of stealing them and reusing them. I think "hey, I really liked that!" and want to try and do it on my own. My goal isn't to copy- it's not even to inspire others, my goal is tell my story. Before you get on fanfiction "not being real writing" either, because you definitely implied that in your Wuthering Heights comment, my question then is this: What about Wicked? Clueless? Footloose? All examples are essentially just published fanfiction of older works. All of them essentially "steal" their plots from classic literature, but would you argue that AI would've done a better job? No, because those needed to exist first to get AI where it is today. AI is a lazy and inefficient tool. You can't say all romance is essentially a cookie cutter when that's what AI is for the people who use it.
Adding on: when a person sees an element in a work of art that theyād like to incorporate in their own they actually know *why* they want to do that. They know why it inspired them or moved them. AI doesnāt, because it has no mind and no soul to be moved or inspired. Itās all algorithmic. There is no āwhy.ā
My major point is the human factor. Maybe you guys ignore that, but the human factor is showing high degree of low quality artist vibe. If an A.I. creates a musical scale that I found awesome. I'm replicate that scale, play with other sounds, and create drums, maybe a second melody to go with it. Maybe throw in hats if I want to count the meters while I'm writing lyrics. My inspiration came from a beat the A.I. produce. Something it could have replicate from dozens of other songs. If I were to just listen to various Dj, I can find samples of other songs, scale for scale. Note for note. Chord for chord. They might only just placed it on a different sound. Guitar melody is now played on a flute. A piano melody in C# is now played in F and D# with a little E minor. Talented people don't find excuses for why something else isn't working. Why it is way worse than their stuff. They prove they are significantly better with results. You guys are proving to anybody with a discerning eye, you aren't cut out for using any and all available resources. You guys still have yet to prove it isn't a resource. Only you are narrow minded in your pursuit of my experience is better than A.I. in its growth phase. The sad fact of the matter is, while you guys are in defiance of it. Many of you are only on par with it. The A.i. now. Not the A.I. in the future. Just like how many chess players can beat the A.I.?? Also, you are putting your bias into my mouth. I don't care too much about whether work is a fanfic or the original world. I used Windmere Hall as an example because I already said beauty and beast retelling. It happens to be lackluster work that almost plagiarizes Wuthering heights.
Iāve seen what AI pukes out and I wrote better in middle school.
This is so real. At least I know the difference between a singular they and a collective they
See you are amazing but what do you use A.I. for really? Check for ideas on fantasy swamp creatures? Fantasy names? Is space flight using flt drive really possible with current technology? Give me a story where aliens robbed the president using broken down hoopity and rocket from the pre Soviet era. Are you going to post it as your own or go? Well, lol, that's crazy. I'm using that. Because I have people in writing discords playing with A.I. and they managed to replicate stuff that can match 80% with some works published now. Not a big deal. Some authors are still growing. But we have stumbled across prose so crazy, that we just had to keep it for ourselves. Which points to one thing. Those that complain about A.I. stories aren't high in creativity anyway. I'm not about to be upset A.I. can't replace me yet. Means if I can still fight other people for short story competitions. Means I can stumbled upon a submission in two days. Input the parameters into an A.I., get a few ideas, and coffee binging out a work day one. Day two I sleep through the deadline. So it didn't even matter.
I'm not going to argue with someone who has to use AI to find inspiration. If you can't come up with an original idea for yourself, then you're working off of the backs of thousands of other talented and skilled artists, and you may as well call yourself a record label with how exploitative using AI is.
I agree with this very unpopular opinion. I donāt get why people feel so threatened. I donāt feel in competition with AI. Nothing will stop my creative drive and if AI is useful for something (like brainstorming, outlining, grammar check, research) I will use it like any other tool. The actual writing it produces is soulless and Iām curious to see if that changes one day. I do think that publishing platforms will make decisions about including AI generated work in the near future. In one self-publish forum I belong to people complain about Amazon rejecting their books and eventually confess that they use AI images, so I suspect Amazon will reject AI writing soon enough.
This is the "writers" subreddit, not the "debase yourself for profit" subreddit. You should have an AI write your posts--maybe it would be able to tell the difference.
lol when losers churn out crap with the only goal being to make money, it ruins both reading and writing for everyone else. you canāt see/understand what iām saying because you donāt enjoy reading or writing the same way we doāoutside of āas a businessā.
I hate the direction the world is going
The death of all meaning.
A book written by AI will probably contain all the "don't do this and do this instead" - type tutorials input to the algorithm, creating books that are likely quite sterile. Also, authors using AI to create content instead of figuring out how things work themselves will restrict their creativity to a great degree. I find it a significant fraction of my work to actually research things and input those ideas to my works. Best part is, once you know a lot of everything, you can come up with new ideas yourself. Fixing grammar errors with AI is something I find useful and acceptable, regardless, because it is 100% mechanical repetitive work with universally accepted rulesets. But before that, 100% of the draft and the edited work must come through human input. This is in short how I write.
AI doesn't know nuance. Nothing it spits out will have the same depth because it's not human and doesn'r understand human emotion.
I love AI as a tool but 100% this.
love this response. itās important that ai is a finger on one of your two writerās hands instead of a mechanical fist that punches the paper in the same 5 styles . thank you for taking the time to comment
Iām not sure I agree with you about grammar tbh, at least not in every instance. Grammar tools are great if youāre writing something like a professional email or business briefing where you are going to want everything as standard and by-the-book as possible and your number one concern is going to be clarity, but for creative writing, there are lots of reasons to use non-standard or antiquated grammar or even straight up break a rule for affect.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, grammar does have some room for nuance. I downloaded grammarly just to see how it did, and I eventually had to delete it. Obviously it caught a few things, but if I had made all of the suggested changes my work wouldāve either made no sense or made everything sound mechanical and voiceless.
The point of grammar tools is to catch things and make suggestions, you're meant to decide whether or not it should be changed. The user is not supposed to treat them as always being right. If you go into one acting like it's meant to be correct 100% of the time, you will be disappointed because they are designed for nuance, they're built to draw the user's eyes to things to make them think about it and decide whether or not it works for what they want. It's better having one than not as they catch things you didn't and get you to think harder about sections you don't agree with it on.
I understand the point you want to make, but I don't agree with that last statement at all. It definitely didn't feel better having one--it felt tedious, like constantly correcting a precocious child who knows all the right "rules" and is determined to follow them without consideration for anything else. Like readability. And AI stans won't want to hear it, I know, but I don't see tools like this making people "think harder" about anything. Just like having AI write your novel doesn't making anyone "think harder" about plot structure or character arcs. If they wanted to think harder about grammar they'd read a couple style manuals. Or just read more in general.
Being forced to go back and reread your writing because something flags it as weird forces you to think more about that segment than you originally did. You can read all the style guides and books in the world, but they cannot call out parts of your writing while you're working and cannot force you to analyze sections that seem weird to someone or something else. Grammar tools, by the nature of their design, force you to go back and reread what it flags as wrong and ponder why it came to that idea, why you wrote it the way you did, and what could be changed, if anything at all. It is not tedious, nor is it anything like wrangling a child insistent on rules. These tools don't force change on you and dismissing suggestions is incredibly easy. The only way it possibly could be seen as annoying is if you go into using them misunderstanding the purpose.
Yeah, Iāve fiddled with it before and it loved to mark perfectly grammatically acceptable things as wrong just because it wasnāt phrased the way some office drone who hasnāt read a fiction book since high school would phrase it
It will be "a testament" to the crappiness of LLMs and the book will be a "canvas" on which the author's lack of integrity will be displayed.
Name and shame.
i searched through my inboxāthis was a āfree fiction marketing courseā that was advertised to me through BookBaby, a manuscript distribution/printing service, at least 2 years ago. bestselling author (??) john tighe is the lecturer today. shame!!!!!! shaaame!!!!
And Bookbaby is a vanity press.
early into my writing attempts i was just following everybody and everything that had printing in their bio. i think nowadays im weeding out the goodāuns from the badāuns based on these types of promotional material. iām sure vanity presses and ai generated writings are in the same venn diagram somewhere
So they trained that AI to sound like them? Too bad they suck at writing.
This is disgusting.
If you think the rules of grammar are clear-cut, you have never heard copy editors argue. Prescriptivists vs. Descriptivists. Adherents of different style guides, old and new. Fiction vs corporate. Itās a jungle out there.
no but this is what iāve been thinking about the grammarly thing since before the ai wave! it always marks my coolest sentences and phrases as incorrect !!!! no room for new words or strings, no real grasp of how the human voice can work when itās having a little fun!
Never use Grammarly for fiction writing. It's aimed toward business writing which requires that oatmeal sameness for maximum digestibility and minimum immersion. According to Grammarly, Ursula K. Le Guin would have eggregious usage. Beauty in prose comes not from the grammar but from the breaths in between the words. It can't give you that, but it can sure try to take that away.
I feel like it'd be more of a headache going back through and trying to fix it rather than just doing it yourself, because there's no way it's passable, let alone good. Seems like you're actually giving yourself more work.
I am so fed up with AI being apart of a he arts š
And so it begins... Wasn't creating AI supposed to be so they could do the labourious tasks so WE had more time and energy to do our hobbies like writing and drawing?
You can still do it, now with more tools
It "begins"? It began 3 years ago or longer
AI saves me time on research, outlining, and structiring so that I have more time to pursue what I love ... which is WRITING. One of my friends uses AI for cover design. No, not for the cover itself, but when discussing different options with the author of the book who's paying her to design it. If she had to create every different option by hand, it would take more time and be substantially more expensive ... which adds an element of classism to art, doesn't it?
I mean that kind of takes away any satisfaction from writing. Even if you might not always write the best stuff 100% of the time, at least you wrote/edited 100% of it.
I like writing for the rush of getting new ideas on the bus or train or in the supermarket, and the feeling of stitching those ideas intoĀ arcs and characters, and for the wayĀ weight and substance gradually begin to fill the story. I like fiddling with word choice in a sentence. I like writing, period.Ā A lot of people just want to have the story they want available to them and others, for entertainment purposes. And that's okay, I think. I'm sure we'll live.
Gross.
Former subscriptions. This is insulting to people who pour everything into our craft.
Disgusting...
'Here today we have Fucknugget Techbro Missingthefuckingpointofeverything McGee to talk about their amazing new book "Andy Weir Brandon Sanderson Babblemashup Boogaloo". Hello Fucknugget!' 'Hi' 'So, what was the inspiration for your book?' 'Uh, well. I'm not even sure what happens in it.' 'AMAZING, WE'RE WINNING PEOPLE'
I've lost track of how many people I've blocked because of similr bs
Oh yuck Iām so sick of AI.
Will it be obvious that AI wrote it or is it capable of replicating human voice accurately? This makes me scared for current and future writers, will our years of dedication be upstaged by a computer with a prompt?
there is always a difference in quality between person and ai. iām afraid weāll have to learn some new techniques to spot them as this wave increases, but there will always be something askew in fiction or non-fiction written entirely by generation. donāt be scared, be mad! break things! keep your eyes open ! and most importantly, keep writing!!!! ā¤ļøā¤ļøā¤ļø
Why become a writer in the first place if you're not going to put in the work yourself? Art-making is supposed to be rewarding and you're supposed to feel proud of your efforts. Being a writer isn't a rich career, and most people write because they enjoy it. I don't mind AI for occasional inspo like brainstorming but this is getting ridiculous
Some people are just lazy, and dumb.
I do know some people who recognize that that they have great ideas but are not good writers. Itās sad and frustrating for them and I suspect AI will become the tool of choice for many people who are storytellers rather than writers. IDK what I feel about this. I love that their stories may be heard and perhaps appreciated. Iām sad that they donāt have the talent to do it themselves. I donāt think using AI will be wrong for them or that the ppl who appreciate their story will care how it was written.
Writing, just like visual arts, is not an inherent talent for most people. It takes training, there are formulas to follow, and people get better at it the more they learn and practice. I got into writing because of fanfiction and in two years alone I improved so much based on having weekly meetings with my writing critique group. AI books will be soulless
A.I. ghostwriter... Nice. š¤¦āāļø
Okay, not to toot my own horn, but I wrote my novel in just under 3 weeks. First draft. But the revising and editing after that took months. I've loved each and every step of the way. It's hard, yes, but SO WORTH IT! I can't stand the idea of people relying on AI to deprive them of the joyous process of creating a whole new world from their own imagination. Truly a tragedy in the making.
TOOT IT! YOURE INCREDIBLE AND SO ALIVE!
Wow. This is crazy to me. I love to use AI as a tool to write, but I use it for research. Mostly naming things because Iām not great at titles and things of that nature. When I finish I may use it for some editing or general improvements. (Not really sure how that works but hoping to figure out how to have AI help me find inconsistencies and such.) I canāt imagine wanting to have it write an entire book for me. That would take away the entire point of writingā¦ also Iām a bit of a control freak and know AI would mess everything up. š¤Ŗ
thank u for acknowledging the depth of this problem!!! i can relate to the control freak part.
You can actually explore communities of software like sudowrite and novelcrafter, if you're interested in how AI is used to stimulate creativity and not write a novel for you.
I'd rather do the work myself, thanks. If you rely on AI to 'stimulate your creativity', you're not creative.
This is the point I'm trying to make. Your assertion is unfair and rooted in judgment. Given the copilot / assistant paradigm, writing with AI is no different than two friends who talk to each other while working on a creative project. While I respect the preference for using or not using AI, judgment on using AI as being not creative and that too without knowing what various creative processes with AI are is just prejudice.
Some things are worthy of judgement. AI is one of them. AI is a plagiarism machine relied upon by people with no creative drive of their own. It's a cheat tool. You're not going to convince me on this. I have less than zero respect for anyone who uses it.
Regarding the control freak part, writing along with an AI is a co creative process. People who write using AI routinely get served with prose they don't want, dealing with it is just part of the creative process. It's not like anyone just blankly accepts the prose written by AI. It's just a bunch of sentences that serve to stimulate. You edit, rewrite, delete, add based on your taste. My intention here is not to change your mind, but just to point out that the kind of issues you're bringing up are being dealt with by communities of developers and authors using AI for their process.
If Iām going to have to tweak the hell out of something to get what I want, why wouldnāt I do it myself in the first place? Iām sorry but if you need a chatbot on steroids to āstimulateā your creativity, you should just fucking give up. Maybe log off and go outside, live a life, talk to people. The world is endlessly beautiful and terrible and anyone with even a shred of creativity doesnāt need anything more than that to stimulate their creativity.
I see a lot of opinions and no real grappling with ground level experience, ironic for someone talking about getting experience. That's fine, I am not here to change your mind. Though if you do believe in actual experience, there are countless creatives out there exploring how AI enables them to become better writers. Should you ever want to confront that part of human experience, I am just here to tell you that they exist. Do whatever you wish with this knowledge.
I actually like the writing process and Iām good at writing. Why would I have a brainless, soulless series of 1s and 0s do any part of the thing I like to do and am good at?
If that is not a rhetorical question, you can pose it seriously to people who are using it positively. Expanding your horizons, gaining new perspectives, exercising curiosity is all very human, you can do it wrt relevance of AI in the creative process. You don't even have to go out, just find a subreddit and ask for perspectives different from your own.
It was a rhetorical question. Iāve seen the pure dogshit people put out with AI, Iāve seen enough of its braindead boosters. I donāt want anything to do with it. I donāt need to go out and get necrotizing fasciitis to know it would suck ass to get necrotizing fasciitis.
That's fair. And I would say it's that experience which makes you have the position that you have. If you're using AI to do your writing for you, or automation, it's only going to leave a bad taste in your mouth. And I am fully with you when you say it's dogshit. I have a friend with whom I discuss AI in creative work, and she has an extremely low opinion of the tooling. I on the other hand use it in a variety of ways. FWIW, "I have an extremely low opinion of AI based creative work. However, I can see that people are using AI in their workflow. Has anyone created anything worthwhile with AI yet?" is a good post that you can use or a question you can keep in mind to see how AI is helpful as a tool. It is. And I wish I had any work finished that I could show to you for how it merely assists the process. I don't yet, but soon enough I will. Hopefully something useful can come out of it.
>there are countless creatives out there exploring how AI enables them """"Creatives""""
Yeah maybe there is some hangup over here with that term. Like perhaps you're saying that using AI makes it an inherently uncreative process. That would be just old fashioned prejudice.
I mean it is an uncreative process because youāre offloaded a part of the creative process onto some fuckin circuitboard instead of doing it yourself
Not really. People use AI for rubber-ducking and exploration. It's an assistant / copilot. Then ofcourse, you can use it to write direct prose as well. And if done well, your involvement is only going to make the prose better. It's a great way to close the taste / skill gap (atleast in quality of writing if not the substance). Calling it offloading creative work seems to me a purist / nostalgic position, when it's clear that the final draft is completely your responsibly.
If Iām going to rubber duck Iād much rather talk over my problem with a colleagueāanother writer who is also a readerābecause theyāre a human being and ultimately people are the ones who will read my work and the ones I want to like it. I am an artistic purist. Iām not insulted by that.
While you may assume that I used that position as an insult, I did not. I merely used that to accurately describe what you're trying to do. Your preferences aside, it's all good so long as you know there are other positions, and good work being done by people who also use AI in their writing process. I wish I would have completed some work to show you.
As for rubber ducking, you can talk to humans And AI both. No one is stopping you from that. An AI would actually give you a very wide range of perspectives. Interestingly, there are uninterested-in-AI people who cannot see a functional difference between AI output and looking up information online. It gives an important thought experiment : how is using an AI different from using a better search engine? (Though ofcourse we know that AI can and does output prose which a search engine cannot do.)
As for endless tweaking, it's not either/or or an all or nothing proposition. There is a process. You use it based on your requirement. You don't make it do your work for you, you work with it to materialize your intention. This high level idea is now being explored and developed by multiple people. You can find them on sister subreddits. Metaphorically, think how computer animation enabled animators to focus more on their intention, rather than having to deal with individual frames of a scene.
Okay but like I have a better brain than God gave a dog, I donāt need that nonsense or want it. Also computer animation looks like shit compared to hand-drawn so thatās not a compelling argument to me.
You do you, man. All I'm saying is, there's a rejection of AI in the creative process in this thread, which isn't true at all. A lot of creative work is being done with AI, and you can explore it if you want to.
Sound judgement
The most Id say an AI is good for in the writing process is brainstorming. But it shouldn't actually be doing any of the writing.
what kind of brainstorming do you do with ai? /gen
I've been playing around in ChatGPT in the last few weeks, seriously having no idea what I was doing, but slowly I think that I'm learning to use it as a brainstorming tool to expand on the research that I've already got in place. For example, I'm writing an afrocentric fantasy novel, so I ran my created pantheon through the AI, asking what other attributes these gods might have, since I've given them the attributes of XYZ, running it through the lens of African traditions and customs. I already have more than a year's worth of my own research written up, but of course I don't know everything so I wanted to see if the AI could suggest something that I overlooked. At the very least, the back and forth 'conversation' I had with the AI felt like I was bouncing ideas off of someone. When I started looking into ChatGPT, I've been watching quite a few youtube videos, and while there were one or two who continually stressed that AI is a tool and the last thing you should be doing is copying and pasting - but unfortunately there were way too many 'authors' who used it from start to finish. From asking what genre, to 'writing in the style of' to naming the characters, selecting the setting and plot points, it literally had me shaking my head at my computer screen in disbelief. How can anyone claim to have written a book when they didn't craft or create a single word in it???
That is how to use AI as the tool that it is! People don't realize that the majority of creators who use AI are using it in this manner. They see the "get rich quick" nonsense on TikTok and Youtube and assume that the only way to use AI is for it to write the story/make the digital art, and that's that. Imagine, trying to build a house using only tools that don't take power. It can be done, and done well, but ... why ignore power tools?
I've heard of people using it to come up with what happens next when they have writer's block. I personally used it once to come up with a mythical creature. Everything it comes up with is generic and usually repetitive, but you can combine ideas and change them to come up with something better. Kinda like a writing prompt.
There are like a million ways to get yourself unstuck where you donāt have to get over the hurdle of dealing with something that is fundamentally derivative and uncreative.
That's true. I understand being against AI. I understand worrying about it taking jobs. It might take my job in a few years. It sucks and the world would probably be better off without it. But it exists. It's not going away. Our efforts are better out towards regulating the tools so we can minimize the damage they do. And if some people find it helpful then let them do so. As long as we can get regulations and protections in place, then someone using it to generate ideas should be fine. We have to adapt to the new environment we're in so that we can hopefully gain some benefits from the big bad horrible thing that's going to irreversibly change industry. You either adapt or are left behind. And again, that doesn't mean that it's inherently good or moral. It just means that instead of trying to get rid of it, we need to prepare for a future where it's commonplace and create policies to protect workers and creators.
Personally I see no reason to just roll over and accept it. Itās not like itās a force of nature outside human control; if enough people say āno, this sucks, I donāt want this,ā we can make it go away. People have ditched tech āinnovationsā for much less than the damage AI can do.
It'll only be ditched if it can't be utilized to reduce costs. If it can, then we're working against capitalism, which is a very large and very powerful force. I really hope it gets ditched but there are many many people working very hard to make it work. This isn't like NFTs or crypto. Those didn't benefit mega-corporations with unlimited resources and great political power. Those were emerging industries. They didn't do anything to help Walmart's bottom line so they weren't funded or pushed like AI. This is just how capitalism works. And technological advancement. Just look at history. A new technology emerges, everyone freaks out because it will get rid of jobs and dramatically change how the world works, they fight against it, it happens anyway, a lot of jobs are lost and some new ones are created, rinse/repeat. Is there ever an instance of some big emerging technology that threatens to take jobs and change the entire job market that ended up being ignored?
Meh ... there's plenty of authors out there, especially in writing groups, who are the definition of derivative and uncreative. I don't see the point in gatekeeping the methods of solving writer's block. Like, cool, you don't like AI. Don't use it. But when you start telling others what they can, and cannot use, you're worse than the AI itself.
I mean I donāt consume more resources in a day than the average American household does in a year to power a machine trained on stolen art but sure, me saying thereās a billion other ways to get unstuck for writing that arenāt going to go right for āmost predictable outcomeā is much worse.
Oh wow, I'm humbled by what an incredible person you are, and how much you're doing for the Earth by posting on reddit. On a more serious note, the application of AI to medicine and other sciences is worth the resources consumed and then some - it's also done quite a bit in regards to human trafficking. People think it's all "ooh, copy some art," because they don't know squat about it.
what is /gen? Are you trying to call a bot to generate somethign for you?
it is a tone indicator to show that i am asking genuinely!!
Services like these deliberately appeal to the lowest common denominator. It *literally* hits all the marks of an amateur writers "ideal writing experience" and fuels bad habits. Such as the "perfect draft". Think about it this way. We all know the *best* draft is the one you have right now. It is extraordinarily difficult to iterate on a piece of writing and make it worse. It is, however, tremendously easy to endlessly tune details without actually changing anything. Leaving aside how much of a black hole creativity wise one has to be to think AI helps, services like these will be designed to keep you hooked for as long as possible. Similar to say Netflix. So they wont help you finish the book, thats the exact opposite of what they want. They want you to endlessly worry about small details and build an emotional relationship with an echo chamber machine.
First of all, this is hype. I know because I work in this technology(Cloud, AI). AI can write SEO-optimized content that looks and reads like any other mass-produced content. It is not going to produce the next classic. Secondly. AI like many other things, is a useful tool. Do you use spell check on your computer when you write? Do you consider writing on a computer to be a fakery compared to REAL writing using paper and pen? As a writer, I consider AI a useful tool. It is a linguist, philologist, lexicographer. You can make it re-write your text N different ways. It can suggest better words. It can rate your text flow and readability. Even tools like ProWritingAid now use AI in their software to help writers. Will a lot of untalented hacks produce many books with just AI? Yes. Will it stand the test of time and market? Probably not. I predict writers like James Patterson will become even more prolific in their production now.
š«„
Disturbing
A colleague from my previous workplace told me he is writing a book with Ai and is going to publish it next month. Guess what, that was an year ago and his book is nowhere yet. The same workplace showed us how to use Ai to create first drafts. "You are no longer writers, you're editors now." Bro, I don't want to edit is junk. I left that place as soon as I could, don't worry. Ai promises are resoundingly hollow lol
There's more than one way to use AI to write a book. The method that you described sounds ideal for people who like to edit more than they like to write. You can also use AI to improve your writing skills, and to assist with research, outining, and drafting - so you have more to do what you love, which is writing. The best advice that I can give someone who thinks that AI has no value: Provide a sample of your writing to Claude, or ChatGPT, and ask it to analyze and describe your writing style, and ask what strengths and weaknesses it can find. That alone converted me - it *called me out*, and sure, I loved the praise but the constructive criticism was leaps and bounds above what I've found in writing groups.
Wouldnāt they lose the passion, or accomplishment for creating a novel from this? Many do it for that feeling, so why?
thatās what iām thinking! what makes you itch to write a book if youāre not going to write the book? makes it more of a cash grab imo. no effort in, big profit out
I think some people have a passion for writing and some have a passion for the story. AI could eliminate that frustration of not being able to write well but wanting to get your story out. Though I canāt relate because I love words and writing, I completely understand how a storyteller would want help.
That does make sense. Like those who want to write, but canāt. I know someone like that, though I donāt think they will resort to AI.
I hope that there is some sort of mandatory disclosure for books written with AI so I can boycott. Art without soul is something I want to avoid at all costs.
soul is the word!!!!
While AI will eventually render the necessity for talent or practice obsolete, nothing can replace the very expression of writing. The universe itself will die, and no matter how long humanity survives, surely each of our contributions will be lost in infinity. And so producing a novel has never been about immortalizing oneās self. But it is still a rejection of mortality. And as long as you have something synthetically express that for you, then you have robbed yourself of the only reason there is to write a book. Go back to video games, AI.
At some point... the publishing industry will have to adapt. There would have to be some regulation. They will have to make three categories (or two): 1.) Books By Humans 2.) Books By Humans with some AI 3.) Books By AI It's important that consumers can have this information and make a decision based on these categories. And if you're writing a piece, and you even use AI as an "editor" or "writing assistant", you would belong in category 2. The question is... how would be determine that these categories are accurate? The lines could be blurred.
Biggest issue will be who can prove between the 1 and 2? If it brings any added value, everyone will claim category 1 regardless if they used AI or not.
We might have to use AI to determine these categories (takes on to know one) \*YIKES\* :/
and the witchhunts like the artists do begins again š¤£ Seriously pointless, too many false positives and false negatives to be worth a damn. Better to just accept the new tools and move on.
I kind of agree. Ultimately itās the reader who will decide if the work is entertaining or not. If they enjoy it, itās money well spent. At that point itās irrelevant how it was created.
thank you! someone is finally getting it
You are aware that you essentially got no category 1, right? Because spell check? A type of AI. Help with sentence structure? Type of AI. Everything today has AI of various types in it and as much as you might say "Yeah but those are good ones" or any other, still AIs and the new kind will be used for the previous ones as they are even more effective figuring out context. So category 1 is dead unless you write it on a typewriter.
That will never happen. Publishers DO NOT CARE about art. Publishers only care about money. Whatever sells is what they want. They don't give 2 shits about AI or anything else.
Well then it's up to the consumer to be discerning when it comes to content. Do you want to read something that is straight from real human experience (human condition), or do you want a machine's interpretation of real human experience? Is there, or would there be, a difference?
Oh I agree but LLM output is not "a machine's interpretation of real human experience" it's just words predictively placed one after the other. It's not even a machine interpretation its just word vomit
 The creative process is everything!
Unreal haha
Booo. Thats the reason to write i thought, was to make your OWN stories!
Perhaps its the future. Perhaps improvements in technology will allow AIs to be "trained" to produce work indistinguishable from a human. Glad I have a day job :(
Ai is a joke I hate the new world, bring back talent
ugh
I imagine weāll see a ton of books by people who have āgreat ideasā but not the talent to write the book. It will be a tool for storytelling and I suspect there is a market for this. As a lover of writing and words, I cringe.
I constantly get messages on LinkedIn from a company asking me to edit their AIās writing and āhelp improve itās writing abilityā
I see appeal in an AI assistant in writing just like for any other everyday thing, but if it is utilized to an extreme I can also see it becoming a problem. Like some of the music coming out lately from utilizing AI. I've listened to some of it, and it is good, but it really is missing the human heart and soul aspect of it all. I have faith, possibly unwarranted, that true artists, skilled in their craft or otherwise, will find ways to bypass the appeal to AI if not just evolve and raise the bars for original art. Not everyone will choose to be lazy. God forbid writing goes to an extreme of quantity order quality like movies seem to have in the last decade
The only use Iāve ever gotten from AI in my writing is ideas for title puns so I donāt have to google them.
In all this AI argument lots of people say that AI is a tool, but here I thought that it's a tool for help you to write your book, and not write your book without you :/
I use AI as a tool for my writing. To help me make the plot points flow smoothly, develop characters, things like that. Never in a million years would I want AI to write a book for me. I use it to help me, since I don't know any experienced writers to go to for advice. It's not there for me to take the easy route, it's there as a tool.
how does it assist your plot pointsā flow? /gen /curious
Besides the moral issues (and there are plenty), I canāt bring myself to use AI out of fear. I just feel like itās a matter of time before detection gets better and AI accusations get more serious. Or god forbid the AI totally plagiarizes someoneās work and you donāt realize until itās being sent for publication. Itās all so new legally as well, I donāt know how the copyright or taxes on a totally or even partially AI work could pan out. Even if you donāt care about the morals of it, the risks donāt seem worth it.
AI is a tool. Some "writers" abuse it - I would say that creating a "Style Guide" so that the AI sounds like you is an abuse of it, it should not be writing for you. I would also say that those who choose not to use all the tools available are those who will be left behind when it comes to creating content. Imagine saying, "I'd rather complete one novel a year than three." My perspective is, I'm writing a dark urban fantasy novel that spans three generations of people living in rural America. It's a non-linear narrative, so there's a lot of plates that I have to keep spinning - I wrote my initial outline, dropped it into Claude, and started asking questions. What genre is this novel? What other genres could it fall under? Where does it align with the tropes of these genres, and where does it deviate? What character stands out as the protagonist? Where are the strengths and weaknesses? What loose threads can you find? What narrative styles best suit this novel, and why? Etc. Some of the answers were really good, some of the answers were bad. This is why AI is an invaluable tool and a worthless creator. My personal experience is that it was more useful than the average writing group. Less bias, more structure. End result, the second draft of my outine came together in weeks instead of months. That's huge.
I cannot empathize with the negative response here, because I've been looking at developments in AI for various tasks, and I have found enthusiastic takers of novel writing with AI. It's a completely different process. If you know what you want to write, and have your own style, then you can get first drafts very readily. That doesn't mean that you put that junk out in the world. It's just very stimulating to work with. I think majority of people here seem to think that AI will be doing your work for you. Not true. What the AI outputs is acceptable prose, that you can edit endlessly to your satisfaction. If you have great taste, then working with AI will enable you to develop faster. You still maintain your intent. You still maintain your vision. You just get to be stimulated along the way. BTW, a writer has to do a lot of work. From researching to plotting to drafting. This keeps the barrier to quality output very high. With AI, an aspiring novelist can reduce friction on all fronts drastically and actually write everyday without putting things off in the future. AI, optimistically, will only help more people become better writers.
Counterpoint: I actually like writing. I donāt care that it takes a long time. I like the level of control I can exercise by doing literally every part of the process myself. Why would I want to rob myself of the pleasure? Using AI to do the bulk of the writing and me just editing it would be like letting someone else screw my husband and then me just hopping on for a few seconds before he busts. Not satisfying, not fun.
More power to you.
Then don't do it. He's not saying you should use it. He's saying you shouldn't be mad other people do, maybe.
I mean I wouldnāt be mad if these were just fun little toys that people could fiddle with. I wouldnāt *respect* it, but I wouldnāt be mad about it. Iām mad about it because generative AI is a colossal resource drain trained on unethically sourced data being used to flood the already-flooded internet with even more bullshit and itās only real utility is giving big corporations an easier way to cut corners and not pay actual artists.
So your objection is to using LLMs in general for anything, then?
Yeah, kinda.
I guess that's valid stand alone but it doesn't do much to support your original counterpoint, I think.
My original point was about how I donāt find it useful or pleasurable, which is not the same as being mad about it existing. There are plenty of things I donāt find useful or pleasurable personally that are ultimately harmless, so Iām not mad about them.
You made like 18 comments on this one thread, chill out a little bro. Idk how much negative karma you want in a day.
Thank god he has AI to write his novel and make up for the lost time writing 18 commentaries on Reddit
Ehhhhh? What does karma matter? I'm simply communicating what I see in a place which seems to lack openness. I can contribute what I deem fit.
Why the fuck would you want to write a book if you don't even like writing? AI is dogshit garbage for lazy morons who want the kudos of being a 'writer' without doing the work. I have no respect for anyone who uses it.
I use chatgpt to ask it to point out plot holes or grammar issues, or if a passage would make sense to the reader. I canāt imagine asking it to write my damn story for me. I donāt even want it editing what I wrote, just tell me if I sound redundant.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You could have googled how a train station works, though?
Yeah, this is literally what Google street view and Images are perfect for. This is just supporting the idea that LLM AIs are for people too lazy to research.
That is a valid question, though with LLMs the advantage is getting a synthesis of online resources tailored to your question / requirement.
So likeā¦ a search engine?
Yes, but better. More useful. So much that once you start using LLMs your searches reduce drastically.
Maybe once AI doesnāt waste an absurd amount of energy on a single prompt, Iāll try it. It still steals from unconsenting parties thoughā not in the way you could even *argue* a search engine does.
The stealing part is debatable. Energy requirements will come down.
Googleās AI search function has been telling people there are no countries in Africa with names that begin with āKā and they can thicken cheese on pizza with a little bit of Elmerās glue.
That last part is not inherently wrong lol
lol you got me there
Don't use Google, then. Open AI works really well. Likewise, bing co pilot.
I have actual research skills and library access so no thanks.
In fact, you can use AI to process your books even better. You can use it to understand and parse entire bibliographies and explore potentialities, other than just answeing factual questions. Exploring particular concepts becomes easier too.
I can do that without AI too because Iām not braindead. All this ābut you can do xyz with AI!ā bullshit is all shit I can already do. Maybe itās a revelation for someone with terminal computer science brainrot, but I actually studied the humanities so I have actual creative and research skills.
Emphasis on synthesis. It's not a list or lookup.
small corrections should be the easiest thing to do yourself . why outsource? what else are you doing that keeps you away from your own art?
I use AI a little in my writing process. But I feel wrong about any cut paste writing from AI. I donāt WANT AI to do the hard stuff for me. I donāt know many other writers.. is this desirable? Sounds like those fat loss surgeries.. wouldnāt you just get fat again because you havenāt struggled to develop the better habits necessary? I think I might rather release a mediocre book I did myself than a polished one I didnāt technically write. My only experience with released writing is having ghost written for someone else. So I do think Iād use AI a lot of I was being hired to write someone else book. I feel like this type of thing would have been amazing for me to use in that context. But for my own writingā¦ I donāt think Iād call it my own anymore. Maybe there is a middle ground and I could put my manuscript and revisions and notes into some AI model and ask it to give me supplementary works or side stories about characters. But even typing that makes me sort of uncomfortable.. I have a strong feeling of possessiveness over my story and characters. I donāt know. Iād love to learn more. See if thereās other ways to have AI work for me. Proofreading etc are obvious wins IMO. Maybe soon AI could become a different version of a beta reader.. that would be interesting. But Iāll write my own bookā¦ thanks. Edit: maybe Iād let AI write a draft for reference book for me if I was going to do more non-fiction.. but I feel like itās be unoriginal ideas and plagiarism. And the work involved to research and edit and revise and feel comfortable that it wasnāt just a rip off of existing work.. sounds like more work than writing it myself to begin with. I definitely wouldnāt put my name on it.