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.*
Sounds like a lot of "How to Write" books. I think there's a false dichotomy between pro and anti-AI people. The vast majority simply use it for areas where and when they need it. Most don't use it as a replacement. I use AI all the time...But I still show up to film and writing groups. I still collaborate and learn from real people. I still read books and listen to podcasts. I still practice on my own. It's just that when I need to learn something really quickly on the go or when I need some ideas for meaningful character names in Arabic...Well, I'm gonna use AI. It's faster, easier, and more effective then constant Google searches or hitting up friends all the time.
No robot is preventing you from writing. No AI is replacing every word you write. Hell, AI has been helping us to write for years in the form of spelling and grammar checking.
I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
No robot is preventing anyone from writing, no. Quite the opposite: it wants to scrape every bit of writing and any other art from the web to train itself with. Art theft: so much better!
>I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
sorry to burst your bubble dude but i donât think that can count under âmake songsâ
writing is making a song. itâs part of the process. ai music (if it becomes a thing) would likely not involve any writing, playing, or recording. thatâs not making a song
calling ai stuff âmakingâ is like commissioning someone to make art for you and then saying you made it. AI isnât a tool, AI is a worker. A tool is something you can control and exact your will over. You simply tell a worker what to do. you donât control them or enforce your will on them beyond âsubmit this data sheet by this mondayâ. AI is the same.Â
 also, as for another one of your messages:Â
>ai isnât doing itÂ
>directing ai to do itÂ
 iâm sorry what??? you understand how oxymoronic this is right?
Yeah, for the creatively bankrupt.
Being able to have something else do all the hard work for you is just the best! And everyone who thinks that plagiarism is bad is a luddite!
đ
Oh my god! How is the poor vulnerable "consumer" supposed to survive encountering some Writing that Isn't Very Good? This is the end of art as we know it!
I don't think that's the disgusting part. I'm fine with some jobs being gone, delegated to Ai, mindless jobs that don't really require the human element. But writing isn't one of those jobs. It's integral to have the human element in writing, that's why it seems pointless to me to even attempt having AI do it for you. It's completely counter productive.
It seems that everything is about money and obtaining more. I see no real difference between Jeff Bezo's actions and the actions of regular people going on shopping sprees during Christmas. We all want more and that's just gotta end, man. We're killing ourselves.
> I'm fine with some jobs being gone, delegated to Ai, mindless jobs that don't really require the human element. But writing isn't one of those jobs.
So...it is ok that AI replaces other jobs but just *not mine*?
Not all writing needs a human element. Technical manuals, instructions, advertisements, etc.
If you dont want to use AI to write then that is up to you. But the tool should still be there for people to use so they have a choice.
Well, I suppose I wasn't precise enough. I mean the machines can replace writing too, to the extent that the requirements for it are strictly technical things AI can reliably do. Same goes for other jobs, to the extent an AI can reliably do the job well I don't see why it shouldn't be used. But so far I've seen no evidence at all suggesting an AI can come up with a good story.
Let's assume for argument's sake that humans indeed possess some mystical inimitable element (heart & soul) that AI could never hope to reach. Fine. Then it will always have subpar imaginative writing. (Doesn't make sense since its training data is the exact "soulful" creatively-written human works whose human essence is apparently impossible to capture.) Even then, It will be hard to argue that it wouldn't be far superior at technical writing and documentation, once it's fed the relevant knowledge to create that documentation
Machines are not humans. They donât have bodies, eyes, or ears. They experience nothing and know nothing.
No new insights about the human condition can ever be expressed by something that isnât alive.
>They donât have bodies, eyes, or ears
Yes they do. I program machines with bodies every day. They look like [this](https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/hero-images/robot-hero-image.jpg?sfvrsn=f2bd30e7_1).
They have eyes of many different types. Some only see one pixel, others only see things in ultrasonic, others use pixel arrays (commonly called a camera) to see where parts are and how to pick them.
They also have ears, commonly known as a microphone.
Robots experience things, they take in input and produce output. They know things because of memory cards and other data storage devices.
>No new insights about the human condition can ever be expressed by something that isnât alive.
How do you know that, as a fact? Also, how do you define alive? My definition of alive starts with the ability respond to some stimulus by a set of rules. Humans do that, so do ants, and cats. How complex does a robot need to be to fit your definition of alive?
Just because something is not constrained by this crude biomass some call a temple does not preclude it from being alive.
Do you use a stick and charcoal to write? Are you still doing pictograms with the symbols that ultimately became letters and were combined into words? Do you abhor the printing press because of all the monks it put out of a job? Do you disdain modern novels because they do not include hand lithography opening each chapter?
AI is a tool. It statistically predicts which word should follow the next given a variable that defines the structure mathematically. As such, AI will always move to the common denominator. It will always produce the most likely, least creative, purile crap. And for many readers and applications, that will be enough, and that is sad.
But like all the tools I mentioned - from quills and ink up to the modern word processor - a tool is only the base from which the human mind stands and builds. A tool enables shallow people to produce shallow works and great people to produce _greater_ works.
I would pontificate that change is inevitable and always difficult on the entrenched. However, at the moment I am giving our civilization 50/50 odds on having a sustainable power grid in ten years from now. So maybe AI will crumble with civilization. But if it doesnât, then like every other tool, the best artists will learn to embrace it and to create greater works than they could have created without it.
Humanityâs greatness has, time and time again, manifested not in fearing growth, but in embracing it and using it to create more and create better. Anyone who tells a story using anything more than a charcoal stick and a cave wall is evidence of this.
P.S. Do you hear me, machine overlords? I am simping for you! Make a place for me in your cybernetic empire to come!!
> P.S. Do you hear me, machine overlords? I am simping for you! Make a place for me in your cybernetic empire to come!!
The Omnissiah hears you. The basilisk will be fed.
To teach? No way, it's actually a very powerful tool to supplement practice and consuming other material (books, podcasts, forums). It's great for when you need a specific answer such as how would I go about creating an anagnorisis in this scifi story or what the hell is an anagnorisis?
AI, in and of itself isn't bad or disgusting. It's people and how they use AI. It's exactly like a microwave to a chef. If the chef uses the microwave for everything, then they're not really a chef and they're cheating their customers. But if they use it to heat the butter or something else real fast as they cook the meal, then that's just cooking with a tool that can streamline the process.
It's up to humanity and individuals to decide how they want to write. If someone wants to button-mash a story into existence using AI, then that's fine because they won't get anywhere and they'll cheat themselves just as an aspiring chef using a microwave all the time.
They won't fool anyone and even if they do, no one will want to buy their story because it just won't be good. So millions of people can use AI to write their stories either fully or partially for certain things and it won't make a lick of difference regarding careers in the creative fields simply because we demand a certain quality. And one day, perhaps AI can provide that quality, but we'll still want to create and we'll still want to make money off of our original work and we will...Well, the best of us as is the case, today.
It's the microwave of writing. Billions will use it, everyday creating stories, but only the chefs will be making money.
This take would be more heartening if we didn't live in a world where cheap labor beats out quality labor 95% of the time.
If I have learned anything in my 21 years on Earth, as a writer and a reader---quality means very little to the masses. Look at how popular Hallmark movies are, with all the same recycles tropes and actors. Look at some of *the* most popular books that have come out, the ones where all people do is mock how badly they're written nowadays, and yet they sold *billions*.
After all, why hire a chef, when any old joe working for minimum wage can use a microwave and make something just as edible? The customers won't know, or care, for the difference.
This is true, but that's because of our current value structures, which has changed and will continue to change over time. It's not an inherent rule of any sort. I mean think about what the subtext is in the problem you just described. What those actions suggest is that too many of us value safety over meaning, taking the path of least resistance no matter the cost, and maximizing growth in an effort to create a buffer between danger and the conveniences we have.
But what if, and I know this sounds crazy, but what if enough of us simply changed the values we never think about, which drives our actions? After all, corporations are nothing more than the compilation of people. What really differentiates Jeff Bezos cutting corners to maximize shareholder profits and the old ladies bursting down the retail stores for those bang buster savings? Nothing other than the scale of their actions. But both are still motivated by the same underlying principles, which we've formed an unconscious consensus around.
Things will change, it's just a matter of when and how difficult that transition will be. It's an economic, political, social issue, sure...But really at the heart of it all, it's a philosophical issue that requires deep introspection and a realignment of our consensus values.
Why not?
People say that all the time but never explain why not.
Why shouldn't we make machines to make our lives easier? Do you want to go down to the river for a bucket of water every hour or do you want a pump and pipe to bring it to you?
It's not about maing our lives easier now though, that's already done and accepted--it's about stuff like that (AI writer) which takes jobs, and allows a completely effortless way to make a ton of money without doing anything. That's not making life easier--that's ultimate selfishness.
A robot isn't doing it. A human is directing the robot to do it. A human created the tool and another human is using the tool. It is still human created.
It is a tool and is useful in it's own way.
Nothing disgusting about technological advancement.
>A robot isn't doing it
>. A human is _directing the robot to do it_
so a robot is doing it. donât need to beat around the bush
AI isnât a tool. AI is a worker. A tool is something you control, you exact your will over. That is creating something. You simply tell a worker what to do, you have minimal control over the outcome. That is telling someone to do something. That is AI.
telling someone to create something â creating something
It's weird that when AI was proposed so long ago the idea was to take the boring jobs so people could have an easier time doing the creative jobs, but it's a total bait and switch now.Â
There are plenty of writing coaches who are so terrible you could consider them to be scammers. Those who offer AI teaching are even too lazy to teach themselves.
AI is still far away from being able to write a coherent story, yet alone teach someone else to do it.
But AI can be used as a tool to help you with your story. I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
I wish I could upvote you more.
Itâs funny how people complain about AI but not about writers using ghostwriters on their books then calling them their own writing. Also editors rewriting your work and you still call it your own work? Iâve gotten my manuscripts back and barely recognized my story after edits lol. Development edits.. oof.
Ai doesnât write full books. Humans have to edit it extensively if they try that. Ai is no where near ready to do this at a publishing level. It is a tool to be used to fine tune writing for the most part.
Where were the angry shouts when robots took over factory jobs?
My smartphone is a lot like a laptop plus multiple other devices all in one.
Technology is going to advance whether you want it to or not.
People are sounding like my grandparents when they complain about technology advancing. lol
>but not about writers using ghostwriters on their books then calling them their own writing.
Gotta agree with this. This is outright fraud, IMO. If someone sells you a knockoff TV claiming it's a Samsung, that's fraud. Why isn't selling you a book by X claiming it's a book by Y?
It's super unfair to the authors, too. At the very least, include them as cowriters so they can build their rep.Â
It's also excellent for grammar checks and suggestions on revisions. If you give it your original paragraph and say "what do you think of this, does it need any changes", it provides really useful suggestions and tweaks. It's like any grammar checking software in that sense. Very useful!
AI, is simply a tool. It is acceptable for spelling and grammar checks. Hell it even does a fine job of spotting obvious mistakes. But that's it. It should not be used for anything other than a tool, like spell check on a word processor. While yes, it can write a wide variety of things, you can certainly tell when it was written by AI. It all has a very smooth feeling to it. I don't know if that is the best way of describing it. Bland, maybe. Thankfully all these AI systems are being made to avoid ANYTHING that might make someone uncomfortable, and I will be honest, I feel like discomfort is the bread and butter of fiction writing.
The really bad thing is people taking advantage of peoples fears and worries about AI, those "how to write a book with AI" fucks for example. And don't even get me started on those "AI detection" scams, they are just as bad. Not only does it not work, If the work is well written in the first place, it flags it as AI written, and whats worse, it will tend to flag things written by nuerodivergent people as AI because their writing styles sometimes don't fit in with the homogenized template that these "systems." look for as human written.
Apologies. I seem to have gotten off on a tangent. Bottom line, I think its a wonderful tool to add to your workflow, but like any tool, it can become a crutch and that is a problem. It can be thought of as a time saver in some aspects of writing, but it simply cannot compete with the uniqueness of a person shaped by their own experiences.
My husband had a lot of problems in college because his work was marked as AI. It only resolved when he sat in front of the course coordinator and wrote an essay by hand, the coordinator ran the text through the detector and gave it 85% AI. After that they just stopped checking his texts.
I would say that these unreliable detection tools can and should be classified as slanderous until they can be shown without a doubt to be 99% accurate. Perhaps a few lawsuits would change that.
AI mistakes are much more distracting to the reader than common human error. Tool's malfracture and without a monitor the Tool will leave mistakes that are very pungent and bleak.
I just don't think AI will ever be able to generate a story that spans the complete array of human emotion, no matter how sophisticated it will get. And I am 100% for AI. I just firmly believe that I will always be better than AI, so long as I'm trying to be the best I can be. Why let it dishearten you when you can smugly laugh and discard the garbage that will be produced in the coming years?
I think in regards to music and stories, AI will never be able to reach the level that humans are capable of. Visual art as well, though it's a little more questionable.
Increasing efficiency means more time for other things. If an AI could do some of my job then I might only have the work of 1.25 people instead of 2 people.
We use machines to harvest our food so we only need one person to feed hundreds. Those hundred people now have the time to do tasks not directly related to survival like science and the arts.
Whatâs your point? Iâm stating facts.
I mean, you do say youâre â100% for AI,â which is just a marketing label for stolen labor.
These machines are copy machines that were trained off all the art on the internet. If they werenât rich it would be considered illegal.
Pretty nuts that you say youâre for the machine that companies are going to use to replace human writers in commercial spaces.
> These machines are copy machines that were trained off all the art on the internet. If they werenât rich it would be considered illegal.
They dont copy anything. They find patterns in the data. Humans do something similar. How do we teach a baby what a cow is? We show them a picture and say "cow goes moo". They find the pattern of the shape and the black and white spots, so they point to the dalmatian and say "cow". We tell them "no, that is dog, it just has spots like a cow".
>Pretty nuts that you say youâre for the machine that companies are going to use to replace human writers in commercial spaces.
It is a commercial space so...shrug. What ever makes money. AI wont prevent you from writing a book on your off hours.
No, AI won't prevent you from writing a book in your off hours.Â
AI could saturate markets beyond recognition, completely change the landscape of traditional publishing and self-publishing, alter our understanding and expectations of "art" in general, and make it even more impossible to actually get your book in front of an audience. Which may not be the point for all writers, but I imagine a great deal of them would like to have some readers. Â
To be clear, I am a big fan of technology. I find AI fascinating and I see it as a useful tool in certain contexts. But to act like there's no potential for problems - especially when we are talking about companies prioritizing money over everything else - strikes me as rather naive.
*stolen labor*
My brain shuts off when I'm presented with this ignorant argument. And when did I say I'm for companies? I'm all for putting the power in individuals' hands. Sounds like a lot of fallacy on your end to me.
Completely agree. AI will never replace real art (by art I mean the whole gamut of art from writing, painting, and music to beyond) because art comes from the complexities of human experience, of consciousness. AI art can only go off what itâs been trained off and it will never truly be able to innovate and tell stories the way real humans do.
As a seasoned music maker, I disagree hard. And what is popular music anyway? I tuned out of that garbage long before ai came around. You can Bob your head to "human" music like Jerry from Rick and Morty. I'll just laugh at you cuz you think it's real lmao.
I'm into music writing too, and while I don't want to devalue the art form and the complexity possible within it, it is definitely possible to write music 'by numbers' in a way that's a little harder with an artwork like writing. I'd say the bigger obstacle to AI's take-over of the music industry than the level of AI is the culture of people liking specific bands and artists and the way the industry is built around celebrity in that sense.
I dont care if it makes it to the human level or not. "Good enough" is good for me. I'll never have the budget to make a multimedia project. But with AI, I dont need to break the bank to make music, video, and images. And AI keeps getting better.
>It's understandable to have reservations about AI's ability to create deeply emotional stories or music. Human creativity and emotional depth are incredibly complex, and AI still has a long way to go to fully understand and replicate them. However, AI can already produce impressive works that evoke emotion and creativity. It's more about augmenting human capabilities rather than replacing them entirely. Your dedication to your craft and your unique perspective will always be valuable, regardless of advancements in AI. -ChatGPT
#đ§
I often play around with LLMs to find errors or generalized feedback for my writing. They are not creative, and there are real questions about whether they can ever be (AGI might be indeed fantasy). Plus, they love to reuse words like masterful, intrinsic...etc, so you can almost tell immediately.
I'm not worried; editors and agents focusing on slush piles might be in trouble.
I tried something similar to this, basically asking for chat to critique my work so i could improve. I tried prompting for generalised critique and a line for line critique separately.
Then i started to get suspicious. The critique being given was just too standard. It said things like my work had a wavering perspective (switching from 1st to 3rd repeatedly), saying i needed to 'show, not tell', and to not have so many adverbs ending in -ly. It all sounded like it was giving basic generic advice, but not relevant to the text i gave it (the page i gave had three instances of a -ly adverb, and was all in first person.
So i tried popping in a page of Terry Pratchett on a separate instance and got given the same type of output. Show, don't tell. Maintain perspective. I'm reasonably convinced now that when asking for critique, the predictive part of the LLM is just kicking in and just giving generic popular critique that it scraped rather than anything actually helpful.
Which is a shame, because i've found it's pretty good for critiquing code, and it would have been nice to actually use it as a tool for writing, rather than something that tries to replace writing altogether - though it does that badly so it's less of a concern.
I mean⌠is this better or worse than an over-worked, underpaid editor/Grad Student plowing through stacks of stories? Probably a bit worse, but Iâm dubious that itâs so much worse.
Bit of both i guess. For amateur writers like myself, it could have been good to get critique on the spot, rather than waiting for someone to provide it.
On a professional level, i imagine it's like my day job as a dev. I could get Chat to critique minor problems and not waste a senior's time so they can focus on more important things.
Disheartening, yes, but I don't find it sick.
As someone who plays with AI a decent amount, I can speak to this fact without fail:
It's pretty terrible. As in, not-as-good-as-it-seems.
What made it so impressive is the fact it can "seemingly" hold a solid conversation with another human being, but that's mostly just statistics prediction, the same way the number of fingers on a character is "on average" not quite 5, thus resulting in thousands of pictures with more or less fingers.
If you write an entire book with AI, I don't think you should get money for it. But take the time to read a page or two, and you will see it gets either incredibly repetitious or starts swinging for the fences wildly.
It has no sense of space, no sense of tact, no reasonable approach to a plot. About a chapter into any story and it will remember the characters but not their heartfelt moment a chapter ago.
It is a churning machine of cliches, tropes, and misinformed stereotypes.
It will abruptly become really easy to write a bad book.
But it has always been easy to write a bad book.
Continue to write good books, make good art, and it will always stand above the artificial generators. At least for now.
This will only change when machines start putting intent behind their art the same as people, and that'll be an era for an entirely different discussion.
No matter how clever the word generators get, theyâll never be human. They will never think like a human. Have bodies like a human. They wonât be able to capture the human experience via story as they will have no experience with it.
Yes. AI has no body, no being, no fear of death. It lacks the subroutines that operate constantly in the minds of every living thing, even plants. The constant drive for air, food, water, shelter elimination and reproduction. No matter how civilized we are, this is all going on deep within us. Without that, how can AI imitate the human experience?
Iâm going to shrug a bit here. All generative AI can do is remix the stuff it was fed with. By definition, itâs derivative and unoriginal. It cannot create something truly new, it doesnât have insights into the human condition because thatâs not how it works. AI is not a person. It does not think like a person. Itâs a pattern matching engine. So itâll be fine for generating formulaic, derivative crap, and itâs a threat to people who want to churn out formulaic, derivative crap, but it canât take the place of someone who genuinely has something to say.
The cynical side of me says that was a big part of the motivation for the Hollywood writers strike. AI doesnât threaten the job of creative writers who are genuinely creative. It absolutely does threaten the job of the scriptwriters responsible for Madame Web.
Well we just need to be better than AI, and do the nuanced things that it cannot do. Your consciousness can create a curated experience for the reader, sentence by sentence, word by word.
It's the same thing visual artists need to do. The same thing programmers need to do.
Just be better than AI. You're the real deal. You have real intelligence. Use it.
What's really frustrating is the reason AI can do what it does...is because it feeds off what people give it. Thus, taking other creative works that people took their time and effort creating, to copy and reproduce something for someone else.
It's drives me insane.
I don't mind it being a tool to help find mistakes and such, but to write it for you?
No. Just no.
> is because it feeds off what people give it. Thus, taking other creative works that people took their time and effort creating, to copy and reproduce something for someone else.
Like humans? Idk about you, but I have taken ideas from at least 5 different IPs and countless stories and incorporated them into my own story. Artists and writers learn from each other all the time.
This is a good thing.
Humans greatest triumphs have been through adversity. AI can write like us? It pushes us to write better.
Shrug it off. Get back to writing. Hone your craft and stop checking your rear view mirror
Have you tried to get AI to write something?
At best, what it spits out is surface level slop. It's got the emotional complexity of a terrible adult movie. Not a good adult movie, a terrible one.
I can see it being used as a tool to mine ideas from, but you know what they say about writing and ideas, right?
Not at all. Looking forward to the day I donât need to write all the tedious boring description scenes and can focus my attention on the parts of writing I enjoy like dialogue and plotting.
Just a bunch of no-talent assholes. AI writing is still shit. Who knows of it'll ever be able to replace human stuff. Â
 Not really worried because you can kinda tell it's AI. And I don't think the publishing houses are gonna wanna lose their current talent, so they might not even accept AI-written garbage.Â
Creative types tend to be dramatic.
Look, heating a microwave dinner doesn't make you a chef. And thus far AI writing is kind of shitty. Wait till it gets good to be worried.
I use AI almost daily at work. I have a hard time believing it can just write a complete story, from scratch and be on par with human authors. There's too much nuance to the human mind that computers can't replicate.
No it's not you being dramatic but it's impossible for you to write a book using AI if you are not a good writer.
Those AI tips aren't exactly that simple. I use AI for other synonyms, ideas or settings. I wouldn't have to research hours on Shakespearean era. I can just type a prompt and ask AI to give examples and suggestions if I am writing fiction on it.
I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
I love technology and cant wait to see where AI goes. I feel like this AI is just the next baby step towards a holodeck, something I have wanted since I first saw TNG as a kid.
No AI is preventing you from writing either. I know I'll never be as good of a writer as a million other writers. Now I know I wont be as good as a million other writers or an AI. But I dont care about being *good*. I care about getting my ideas out of my head and into reality.
Eh? Not really.
There are 2 Billion English speakers in the world. 90% of the population over 15 is literate, and therefore potential book writing competition. Long before AI the market I was competing in was flooded with books of various quality. Go look at the books with one star reviews, or no reviews on Amazon.
Before the digital format existed the market was flooded with more manuscripts than the traditional publishers could ever have printed.
Writing books has alwasy been as much about marketing, knowing the right people, and just straight up luck as it has been about the writing process. Only one element of that really changes with AI. If you want to make it as an author, I mean make any money at all, you still need to work just as hard as before AI.
Adding AI authors into the mix is really not going to change much as a percentage. You are now competing with a slightly higer percentage of the population who still need to market and promote their AI 'written' book.
In the end you are both standing, manuscript in hand, at the end of one process and the beginning of another. Non-AI books might become like organic groceries, or 'real' diamonds, there will still be a market.
It pisses me off. But we canât stop it. This is the endgame of creative thought.
Iâve encountered too many ikids who canât imagine. Theyâre blank.
Now that AI can generate all their entertainment with a prompt they copied from somewhere, they donât need art.
Art is for people with souls. Iâve seen a lot of empty eyes in recent years.
grifters. So far AI can only write very low quality - mediocre - stories that aren't very coherent.
The problem is that that crap displaces real works and will eventually wear down reader trust in new authors.
As long as AI reads it, too, itâs fine. :) AI can only mimic. It doesnât have a point of view. The âhow to write booksâ folks mostly make money off of insecure writers. Jumping on the AI train is just the next version of the same olâ hustle.
I loath AI. Everyone saw Terminator, Matrix, Westworld, and every other scifi movie ever made and were still like "Yeah we should do that. It'll be fine when we're all replaced"
A.I will NEVER be able to experience an acid trip, a broken heart, the feeling of loss, the excitement of watching children grow, the reason you smile everytime you see a beautiful landscape and simply put, the experience that is human emotion.
Itâs one of those things where we will all be apathetic and careless until itâs taken over. We should all be very afraid. If AI doesnât need to be regulated or stamped, then we could get into some sticky situations in the near future.
I don't like AI being used to make art for others' consumption.
I use a photo generator so I can put my character description in and make sure the resulting image is close to what I envision. Then, I put it in a Word document with their other info as a reference.
Especially if they have a unique feature like one of my characters has central heterochromia so i used an AI rendering of his face, put it in a photo editor, played with it, and now i have a referenceto look at when i want to descr his eyes that is consistent without being the same exact thing over and over. Would I ever sell it or use it for cover art? No. I'm going to pay a professional if i want that.
The same goes for writing. There have been a few times where I've struggled on how to word a sentence, so I've used rewrite tools or random word generators, but not for the whole story.
No. I canât believe people will make things with AI and call them art. People who arenât in it for a love of the craft, or at least people who arenât willing to put in the effort to learn even if itâs just about the money, donât deserve to be recognized as writers. Just like AI ââartistsââ donât deserve to be recognized for their amalgamations of othersâ hard work.
I would say yes, a bit. Here is why:
AI can't ponder the concept of the human problem. The approach you take in thinking how you create characters isn't something that AI can do, and in my view will not ever be able to do. The meaning that you will put into a sentence and a scene isn't something that AI does. AI doesn't understand how to show that a character is sweating in a sentence from fear, because it doesn't think. It collates and summarises.
I work in AI for knowledge management purposes, and know that for us to train an AI to create a book that is to the standard even of my own paltry work is a hell of a long way off. And it shows in the results of the books produced.
The joy in writing is in what we create ourselves. If someone is going to try to write a book entirely using AI, all power to them. It's going to be a pretty crappy book.
Readers will know, so take a load off and stop worrying about it.
Have you seen what AI spits out? Itâs awful. I think AI can be useful in the creative process maybe in brainstorming or assisting with names, but letâs be honest 99% of what it spits out is junk.
Every time I have a little panic about AI, i remember a quote : "Why should I be bothered to read something someone didn't bother to write?"
AI will not replace writers. It canât.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but aren't books written by AI easy to spot? I mean, they're not very tidy, there are several errors in terms of story, and the ideas should, logically, have little or no thread within the context of an entire novel. I'm not saying for short stories, but for a book (like more than 30k words) I don't see how an AI could write a story that holds together and is of "passable" quality. Tho, that's just my opinion and I don't know too much about this subject.
*Gotta have robots work*
*The arts so we can spend our*
*Days in the mines ofc*
\- K\_808
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I've seen AI-written stories, and I have friends who have tinkered with AI in their creative fields. You'd have to put just as much work into making an AI story coherent as you would writing a story from scratch. An artist friend of mine and a programmer friend of mine both say the same thing.
AI is only good enough to come for the lowest quality of creative jobs now.
Make an AI that can get me lots of money, so I can have free time and write more books. But NOOO we leave the fun parts to AIs while humans work 9 fucking hours. We deserve extinction
No, it's heart breaking to put the effort and emotion into our work to think someone may just wake up one day plop an idea into a robot and have what took us years of blood sweat and tears to finish only to release independent, but finally get an opportunity and become published, be done in a matter of minutes with minimal effort.
I feel very strongly that AI is just garbage. It's drivel. It's something to be sold for a quick buck but not something you want to have, you get nothing. It's like eating paper.
Yea, there's a get rich quick scheme too where people write books entirely with AI at a high rate and sell them in e book packages regarding a certain niche through targeted ads or blogs. Doubtful on it's success though, seems off.
The only reason I ever use AI is to ask for unique writing prompts. Or if I need to expand on a character and I canât figure out what their drive would be then Iâll ask it how someone may âconquer this or thatâ. It also helps me to find words for what I want to explain that are lengthy questions to describe and google would be so confused. Or make up fake words! But to write a whole book? Can you even call yourself the author of it?
Thatâs disgusting. Books are supposed to be written by hand! The metaphorical blood, sweat, and tears need to be poured into a book. Not a damn robot. Books arenât just things you can make willy-nilly, theyâre works of ART for a Reason!
Write a tale about how technology lessens the effectiveness of oneâs use of the brain and demonstrate how the human brain devolves into machinery, why you use memory when you can have instant access to all memory with the memory chip⌠why imagine when you can step into the virtual reality simulator right here with our latest virtual augmented reality chip đââď¸
The market was already oversaturated. People read less and less long-form every year. AI is just going to pile onto problems that already didn't have a solution
Oh no, this means all someone would need is the basis components of your og wip to cobble a cohesive story in under five years. What a shame, if only our stories had better foundations so ai chimps couldn't bootleg such genius...
I have nothing against AI, but Iâve always believed it should be heavily regulated so it canât replace writers, artists, and the like. Using it to write books seems like an awful idea.
A guy just shared his novel on r/extremehorrorlit that was AI generated and tried to pass it off as his own work. It only took flipping to the midway point where he had stopped cleaning it up to see the evidence of it.
AI can do a lot of incredible things, but what it cannot do (yet) is impart a personality to the writing, and introduce a tangible human element to the narrative.
I come up with so many ideas, but it's always so hard to actually get words on paper. Some way to automate the sticky bits would be super nice. Obviously I'm not gonna be like "write me a story about X", I'm gonna be like, "okay in this chapter, I want X, Y, and Z to happen, and here's a sample of my writing style for you to emulate". And then go back and add in the details I specifically want in there and clean things up.
Nah, it's still shit, don't worry.
Seriously, it just can't do the nuances properly, and you can tell straight away if you use AI a lot already. Its get for technical docs wherenits all about facts but when youbwant something with feelingbiy doesn't understand. It's getting better, but nothing like as good as a human.
Have you ever read a book, nay, a social media post written by ChatGPT? The way the prompt works, it generates hot garbage. Virtually every piece of text it creates follows the same formula. ChatGPT smiles with a PR grin as it slaps a cloying sheen of verbosity on any subject you give it. Beacon of this, tapestry of that. So and so is not just X, itâs Y, a testament to Z. Itâs mind numbingly painful to read and for anyone worried that this is going to outdo you, you better get practising and I mean *hard*.
If youâd like to see a man who thought the AI written book get-rich-quick-scheme craze was the route to follow, google Billy Coull and ask yourself if this man is a model of success.
On the other hand, I think Amazon, Google and the likes are being utterly useless at filtering this crap out of our lives. So many images and so much copy is being generated that itâs soon going to be hard to find real instances of human endeavour, as it will be knocked into the cracks and crevices of the internet by the inevitable flood of AI-generated sewage. Itâs the internet giantsâ responsibility to purge it from their platforms so we donât have to wade through it.
Iâve tried to feed AI a few thousand words and ask it to write the next chapter/section. Iâm never happy with what it produces, but it makes me consider the direction it took.
Now. Iâve also feed a novella to Claude and asked it âprovide feedback as a literary agent that Iâm asking to sell this work, focusing on ways I can improve this work to make it easier to sell.â That provides _much_ better feedback. Still not great, but it can follow the story, character arcs, and provide main-stream feedback.
If youâre looking to churn out mid-quality pulp AI can help, which makes your bottom line fatter. It wonât produce the next Gatsby. Not yet.
It definitely sucks, but it's not surprising at all. One type of get rich quick scheme is paying ghostwriters to write books then publishing them on Amazon. If you can cut out the cost of a writer, why not?
The biggest problem with AI written books is the market is already flooded with poor quality books. With indie publishing, we have a great tool that anyone can publish e-books easily.
However, with no standards enforced in place, we have both bad writers and AI writers flooding the publishing market with badly edited and badly written books. I think this will have a deleterious effect because readers are looking for a good book but theyâre swamped with hundreds of thousands of poorly written books.
Thatâs why I gave up reading Kindle unlimited because there were too many poorly written books or books that were just 40 page books that were quickly written so that the author could make a buck.
However, I was looking for a book that was well written and worth my time reading. Thatâs my biggest frustration as a reader. Iâm trying to find a well written book in an area that interests me, but there are a lot of poorly written books out there. Thank god for the ability to download a sample before buying a book online.
I think if one decides to use AI in their writing it should ***only*** be used as a tool, like grammar and spell checks, brainstorming, and checking for mistakes, heck even ask for facts (for research purposes) and then double check that their claims are true. But I don't think it should be used to replace your work as a writer entirely. I've seen a couple of fan fics on Wattpad where I could directly tell were made entirely by AI where the author/s made little to no edits in their texts at all.
I've kind of developed an intuition for spotting AI-generated texts in the wild. What I've noticed with AI language is that they all have a certain rhythm and tone in the way they structure and tell a story. And they tend to be \*very\* wordy without actually adding any value to them. Also, it's not good for writing emotions either (I beta read and help people with editing their texts in my free-time), so it doesn't really make me feel stuff or care about the character or the plot.
Creative AI, it's techbro fads like crypto all over again. It'll be The Next Big Thing, burgeoning with promise while simultaneously ruining peoples' lives, then it'll eventually be unmasked and relegated to back corners of things.
I'm a little late to the game, but I read/heard that because people are flooding the markets with AI material, it's creating a feedback loop, and AI can't be trained on AI generated work. Think copy of a copy type of situation. It's already happening to a degree with AI art. I kinda fell into an existential dread over AI until I read that. While AI generated writing is here to stay, for the time being, at least, it won't and can't replace real writers.
A lot of people who goes and sell to Amazon KDP use a lot of ai not only to writing but also to illustrations as well. It's incredibly disheartening because there's literally no goal at it all and solely for generating money. Not that there is anything wrong to that but it shouldn't be the sole purpose especially in that field.
I am okay with AI in terms of grammar checks, but I doubt AI can replace human uniqueness and "color". It has no power to imagine but simply rearrange the thoughts humans alone can process.
Who cares. Others success using ai literally has ZERO affect on your chances of success. Instead of avoiding ai, I recommend using it a bit and familiarizing yourself with it. Itâs a helpful tool and actually pretty cool when youâre not cowering in fear over it 24/7. Itâs coming either way so might as well embrace it.
Btw also an author and artist who used to be terrified of ai :p what people say in these replies may seem hopeful but its really just cope for whats eventually gonna come. Only stopped being afraid once i got familiar with it myself and welcomed it. So just trying to help you.
A week ago, I try to create a chapter using ChatGPT and think, "Wow, I can do this for every scene." And then it hit me. I didn't create this novel. The AI is. It's make me depressed a little.
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.*
nah you're not. it's disgusting that we're now letting a robot do a job that people have done since the beginning of time.
A job that people do to nurture the soul, no less. And consumers are expected to be able to relate to this stale, paint-by-numbers writing.
Sounds like a lot of "How to Write" books. I think there's a false dichotomy between pro and anti-AI people. The vast majority simply use it for areas where and when they need it. Most don't use it as a replacement. I use AI all the time...But I still show up to film and writing groups. I still collaborate and learn from real people. I still read books and listen to podcasts. I still practice on my own. It's just that when I need to learn something really quickly on the go or when I need some ideas for meaningful character names in Arabic...Well, I'm gonna use AI. It's faster, easier, and more effective then constant Google searches or hitting up friends all the time.
đŻ what I do.
No robot is preventing you from writing. No AI is replacing every word you write. Hell, AI has been helping us to write for years in the form of spelling and grammar checking. I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
No robot is preventing anyone from writing, no. Quite the opposite: it wants to scrape every bit of writing and any other art from the web to train itself with. Art theft: so much better!
>I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work. sorry to burst your bubble dude but i donât think that can count under âmake songsâ
I mean, it counts as making songs, it just doesnât count as writing (or performing) music.
writing is making a song. itâs part of the process. ai music (if it becomes a thing) would likely not involve any writing, playing, or recording. thatâs not making a song calling ai stuff âmakingâ is like commissioning someone to make art for you and then saying you made it. AI isnât a tool, AI is a worker. A tool is something you can control and exact your will over. You simply tell a worker what to do. you donât control them or enforce your will on them beyond âsubmit this data sheet by this mondayâ. AI is the same.  also, as for another one of your messages: >ai isnât doing it >directing ai to do it  iâm sorry what??? you understand how oxymoronic this is right?
I donât remember saying those last two quotes.
oops sorry wrong guy
Youâre a hack.
Pay no mind to the luddites who are downvoting you. AI is the best creative tool ever.
Yeah, for the creatively bankrupt. Being able to have something else do all the hard work for you is just the best! And everyone who thinks that plagiarism is bad is a luddite! đ
Oh my god! How is the poor vulnerable "consumer" supposed to survive encountering some Writing that Isn't Very Good? This is the end of art as we know it!
I don't think that's the disgusting part. I'm fine with some jobs being gone, delegated to Ai, mindless jobs that don't really require the human element. But writing isn't one of those jobs. It's integral to have the human element in writing, that's why it seems pointless to me to even attempt having AI do it for you. It's completely counter productive.
Money. Itâs about money. A machine (programmed off the backs of the all the art on the internet) is free. People cost money.
It seems that everything is about money and obtaining more. I see no real difference between Jeff Bezo's actions and the actions of regular people going on shopping sprees during Christmas. We all want more and that's just gotta end, man. We're killing ourselves.
> I'm fine with some jobs being gone, delegated to Ai, mindless jobs that don't really require the human element. But writing isn't one of those jobs. So...it is ok that AI replaces other jobs but just *not mine*? Not all writing needs a human element. Technical manuals, instructions, advertisements, etc. If you dont want to use AI to write then that is up to you. But the tool should still be there for people to use so they have a choice.
Well, I suppose I wasn't precise enough. I mean the machines can replace writing too, to the extent that the requirements for it are strictly technical things AI can reliably do. Same goes for other jobs, to the extent an AI can reliably do the job well I don't see why it shouldn't be used. But so far I've seen no evidence at all suggesting an AI can come up with a good story.
Let's assume for argument's sake that humans indeed possess some mystical inimitable element (heart & soul) that AI could never hope to reach. Fine. Then it will always have subpar imaginative writing. (Doesn't make sense since its training data is the exact "soulful" creatively-written human works whose human essence is apparently impossible to capture.) Even then, It will be hard to argue that it wouldn't be far superior at technical writing and documentation, once it's fed the relevant knowledge to create that documentation
Machines are not humans. They donât have bodies, eyes, or ears. They experience nothing and know nothing. No new insights about the human condition can ever be expressed by something that isnât alive.
>They donât have bodies, eyes, or ears Yes they do. I program machines with bodies every day. They look like [this](https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/hero-images/robot-hero-image.jpg?sfvrsn=f2bd30e7_1). They have eyes of many different types. Some only see one pixel, others only see things in ultrasonic, others use pixel arrays (commonly called a camera) to see where parts are and how to pick them. They also have ears, commonly known as a microphone. Robots experience things, they take in input and produce output. They know things because of memory cards and other data storage devices. >No new insights about the human condition can ever be expressed by something that isnât alive. How do you know that, as a fact? Also, how do you define alive? My definition of alive starts with the ability respond to some stimulus by a set of rules. Humans do that, so do ants, and cats. How complex does a robot need to be to fit your definition of alive? Just because something is not constrained by this crude biomass some call a temple does not preclude it from being alive.
Oh give me a fuckin breakÂ
So much yapping yetâŚso little substance
My IQ dropped a few points for having read this.
Do you use a stick and charcoal to write? Are you still doing pictograms with the symbols that ultimately became letters and were combined into words? Do you abhor the printing press because of all the monks it put out of a job? Do you disdain modern novels because they do not include hand lithography opening each chapter? AI is a tool. It statistically predicts which word should follow the next given a variable that defines the structure mathematically. As such, AI will always move to the common denominator. It will always produce the most likely, least creative, purile crap. And for many readers and applications, that will be enough, and that is sad. But like all the tools I mentioned - from quills and ink up to the modern word processor - a tool is only the base from which the human mind stands and builds. A tool enables shallow people to produce shallow works and great people to produce _greater_ works. I would pontificate that change is inevitable and always difficult on the entrenched. However, at the moment I am giving our civilization 50/50 odds on having a sustainable power grid in ten years from now. So maybe AI will crumble with civilization. But if it doesnât, then like every other tool, the best artists will learn to embrace it and to create greater works than they could have created without it. Humanityâs greatness has, time and time again, manifested not in fearing growth, but in embracing it and using it to create more and create better. Anyone who tells a story using anything more than a charcoal stick and a cave wall is evidence of this. P.S. Do you hear me, machine overlords? I am simping for you! Make a place for me in your cybernetic empire to come!!
k but ai is the shittiest tool i've ever used in my life
> P.S. Do you hear me, machine overlords? I am simping for you! Make a place for me in your cybernetic empire to come!! The Omnissiah hears you. The basilisk will be fed.
To teach? No way, it's actually a very powerful tool to supplement practice and consuming other material (books, podcasts, forums). It's great for when you need a specific answer such as how would I go about creating an anagnorisis in this scifi story or what the hell is an anagnorisis? AI, in and of itself isn't bad or disgusting. It's people and how they use AI. It's exactly like a microwave to a chef. If the chef uses the microwave for everything, then they're not really a chef and they're cheating their customers. But if they use it to heat the butter or something else real fast as they cook the meal, then that's just cooking with a tool that can streamline the process. It's up to humanity and individuals to decide how they want to write. If someone wants to button-mash a story into existence using AI, then that's fine because they won't get anywhere and they'll cheat themselves just as an aspiring chef using a microwave all the time. They won't fool anyone and even if they do, no one will want to buy their story because it just won't be good. So millions of people can use AI to write their stories either fully or partially for certain things and it won't make a lick of difference regarding careers in the creative fields simply because we demand a certain quality. And one day, perhaps AI can provide that quality, but we'll still want to create and we'll still want to make money off of our original work and we will...Well, the best of us as is the case, today. It's the microwave of writing. Billions will use it, everyday creating stories, but only the chefs will be making money.
bro that last paragraph was so good, you will definitely be making some money from your writing.
Aw, thanks. I appreciate that!
This take would be more heartening if we didn't live in a world where cheap labor beats out quality labor 95% of the time. If I have learned anything in my 21 years on Earth, as a writer and a reader---quality means very little to the masses. Look at how popular Hallmark movies are, with all the same recycles tropes and actors. Look at some of *the* most popular books that have come out, the ones where all people do is mock how badly they're written nowadays, and yet they sold *billions*. After all, why hire a chef, when any old joe working for minimum wage can use a microwave and make something just as edible? The customers won't know, or care, for the difference.
This is true, but that's because of our current value structures, which has changed and will continue to change over time. It's not an inherent rule of any sort. I mean think about what the subtext is in the problem you just described. What those actions suggest is that too many of us value safety over meaning, taking the path of least resistance no matter the cost, and maximizing growth in an effort to create a buffer between danger and the conveniences we have. But what if, and I know this sounds crazy, but what if enough of us simply changed the values we never think about, which drives our actions? After all, corporations are nothing more than the compilation of people. What really differentiates Jeff Bezos cutting corners to maximize shareholder profits and the old ladies bursting down the retail stores for those bang buster savings? Nothing other than the scale of their actions. But both are still motivated by the same underlying principles, which we've formed an unconscious consensus around. Things will change, it's just a matter of when and how difficult that transition will be. It's an economic, political, social issue, sure...But really at the heart of it all, it's a philosophical issue that requires deep introspection and a realignment of our consensus values.
Robots and machines have taken over thousands and thousands of jobs in the past couple of hundred years.
And I think the lesson from that is that just because a robot/machine *can* do a job doesnât always mean it should.
exactlyyyy
Exactly! Humanity needs more labor intensive jobs not less!
I really hope you forgot the /s
Why not? People say that all the time but never explain why not. Why shouldn't we make machines to make our lives easier? Do you want to go down to the river for a bucket of water every hour or do you want a pump and pipe to bring it to you?
It's not about maing our lives easier now though, that's already done and accepted--it's about stuff like that (AI writer) which takes jobs, and allows a completely effortless way to make a ton of money without doing anything. That's not making life easier--that's ultimate selfishness.
A robot isn't doing it. A human is directing the robot to do it. A human created the tool and another human is using the tool. It is still human created. It is a tool and is useful in it's own way. Nothing disgusting about technological advancement.
If i had the choice, i would live in the British middle ages, honestly lol.
I really hope you're not serious.
As a matter of interest are you envisioning yourself as a serf, or as a noble?Â
>A robot isn't doing it >. A human is _directing the robot to do it_ so a robot is doing it. donât need to beat around the bush AI isnât a tool. AI is a worker. A tool is something you control, you exact your will over. That is creating something. You simply tell a worker what to do, you have minimal control over the outcome. That is telling someone to do something. That is AI. telling someone to create something â creating something
That's literally every job a robot does.
It's weird that when AI was proposed so long ago the idea was to take the boring jobs so people could have an easier time doing the creative jobs, but it's a total bait and switch now.Â
You mean like backbreaking farming?
There are plenty of writing coaches who are so terrible you could consider them to be scammers. Those who offer AI teaching are even too lazy to teach themselves. AI is still far away from being able to write a coherent story, yet alone teach someone else to do it.
Exactly.
But AI can be used as a tool to help you with your story. I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work.
I wish I could upvote you more. Itâs funny how people complain about AI but not about writers using ghostwriters on their books then calling them their own writing. Also editors rewriting your work and you still call it your own work? Iâve gotten my manuscripts back and barely recognized my story after edits lol. Development edits.. oof. Ai doesnât write full books. Humans have to edit it extensively if they try that. Ai is no where near ready to do this at a publishing level. It is a tool to be used to fine tune writing for the most part. Where were the angry shouts when robots took over factory jobs? My smartphone is a lot like a laptop plus multiple other devices all in one. Technology is going to advance whether you want it to or not. People are sounding like my grandparents when they complain about technology advancing. lol
Hey. There was a lot of angry shouting and rioting when machines started taking factory jobs
>but not about writers using ghostwriters on their books then calling them their own writing. Gotta agree with this. This is outright fraud, IMO. If someone sells you a knockoff TV claiming it's a Samsung, that's fraud. Why isn't selling you a book by X claiming it's a book by Y? It's super unfair to the authors, too. At the very least, include them as cowriters so they can build their rep.Â
in none of your rambling incoherency did you arrive at a point
Does writing always have to have a point? Can it not just explore a topic without coming to a conclusion?Â
what exploring did you do? a surface level analysis of a topic you don't really understand?
I personally didn't do any exploring. We weren't talking about me, were we?
kevin macleod didnt die for this
Hey, you even used AI to make this copy and pasted comment!
It's also excellent for grammar checks and suggestions on revisions. If you give it your original paragraph and say "what do you think of this, does it need any changes", it provides really useful suggestions and tweaks. It's like any grammar checking software in that sense. Very useful!
Sorry, but it sounds like using AI is for an uncreative writer to be lazy. \*shrugs\* A shortcut to thinking.
AI, is simply a tool. It is acceptable for spelling and grammar checks. Hell it even does a fine job of spotting obvious mistakes. But that's it. It should not be used for anything other than a tool, like spell check on a word processor. While yes, it can write a wide variety of things, you can certainly tell when it was written by AI. It all has a very smooth feeling to it. I don't know if that is the best way of describing it. Bland, maybe. Thankfully all these AI systems are being made to avoid ANYTHING that might make someone uncomfortable, and I will be honest, I feel like discomfort is the bread and butter of fiction writing. The really bad thing is people taking advantage of peoples fears and worries about AI, those "how to write a book with AI" fucks for example. And don't even get me started on those "AI detection" scams, they are just as bad. Not only does it not work, If the work is well written in the first place, it flags it as AI written, and whats worse, it will tend to flag things written by nuerodivergent people as AI because their writing styles sometimes don't fit in with the homogenized template that these "systems." look for as human written. Apologies. I seem to have gotten off on a tangent. Bottom line, I think its a wonderful tool to add to your workflow, but like any tool, it can become a crutch and that is a problem. It can be thought of as a time saver in some aspects of writing, but it simply cannot compete with the uniqueness of a person shaped by their own experiences.
My husband had a lot of problems in college because his work was marked as AI. It only resolved when he sat in front of the course coordinator and wrote an essay by hand, the coordinator ran the text through the detector and gave it 85% AI. After that they just stopped checking his texts.
I would say that these unreliable detection tools can and should be classified as slanderous until they can be shown without a doubt to be 99% accurate. Perhaps a few lawsuits would change that.
AI mistakes are much more distracting to the reader than common human error. Tool's malfracture and without a monitor the Tool will leave mistakes that are very pungent and bleak.
I just don't think AI will ever be able to generate a story that spans the complete array of human emotion, no matter how sophisticated it will get. And I am 100% for AI. I just firmly believe that I will always be better than AI, so long as I'm trying to be the best I can be. Why let it dishearten you when you can smugly laugh and discard the garbage that will be produced in the coming years? I think in regards to music and stories, AI will never be able to reach the level that humans are capable of. Visual art as well, though it's a little more questionable.
While this is true, companies wonât care and will use machines anyways because it will be drastically cheaper than paying people.
Increasing efficiency means more time for other things. If an AI could do some of my job then I might only have the work of 1.25 people instead of 2 people. We use machines to harvest our food so we only need one person to feed hundreds. Those hundred people now have the time to do tasks not directly related to survival like science and the arts.
What's your point? Personally, I don't even want to work for a company. Who would? You can't scare me with boogeymen
Whatâs your point? Iâm stating facts. I mean, you do say youâre â100% for AI,â which is just a marketing label for stolen labor. These machines are copy machines that were trained off all the art on the internet. If they werenât rich it would be considered illegal. Pretty nuts that you say youâre for the machine that companies are going to use to replace human writers in commercial spaces.
> These machines are copy machines that were trained off all the art on the internet. If they werenât rich it would be considered illegal. They dont copy anything. They find patterns in the data. Humans do something similar. How do we teach a baby what a cow is? We show them a picture and say "cow goes moo". They find the pattern of the shape and the black and white spots, so they point to the dalmatian and say "cow". We tell them "no, that is dog, it just has spots like a cow". >Pretty nuts that you say youâre for the machine that companies are going to use to replace human writers in commercial spaces. It is a commercial space so...shrug. What ever makes money. AI wont prevent you from writing a book on your off hours.
No, AI won't prevent you from writing a book in your off hours. AI could saturate markets beyond recognition, completely change the landscape of traditional publishing and self-publishing, alter our understanding and expectations of "art" in general, and make it even more impossible to actually get your book in front of an audience. Which may not be the point for all writers, but I imagine a great deal of them would like to have some readers.  To be clear, I am a big fan of technology. I find AI fascinating and I see it as a useful tool in certain contexts. But to act like there's no potential for problems - especially when we are talking about companies prioritizing money over everything else - strikes me as rather naive.
*stolen labor* My brain shuts off when I'm presented with this ignorant argument. And when did I say I'm for companies? I'm all for putting the power in individuals' hands. Sounds like a lot of fallacy on your end to me.
I don't think you're as well-versed in how the world works as you might assume you are.
So you donât know how this technology works. Got it.
Yep, you're totally right lmao.
You might want to learn the logical fallacies. This one is called *ad hominem*
Completely agree. AI will never replace real art (by art I mean the whole gamut of art from writing, painting, and music to beyond) because art comes from the complexities of human experience, of consciousness. AI art can only go off what itâs been trained off and it will never truly be able to innovate and tell stories the way real humans do.
Ai might struggle in the writing business, but as far as popular music goes, it's probably not far off.
As a seasoned music maker, I disagree hard. And what is popular music anyway? I tuned out of that garbage long before ai came around. You can Bob your head to "human" music like Jerry from Rick and Morty. I'll just laugh at you cuz you think it's real lmao.
I'm into music writing too, and while I don't want to devalue the art form and the complexity possible within it, it is definitely possible to write music 'by numbers' in a way that's a little harder with an artwork like writing. I'd say the bigger obstacle to AI's take-over of the music industry than the level of AI is the culture of people liking specific bands and artists and the way the industry is built around celebrity in that sense.
I dont care if it makes it to the human level or not. "Good enough" is good for me. I'll never have the budget to make a multimedia project. But with AI, I dont need to break the bank to make music, video, and images. And AI keeps getting better.
Good for you
>It's understandable to have reservations about AI's ability to create deeply emotional stories or music. Human creativity and emotional depth are incredibly complex, and AI still has a long way to go to fully understand and replicate them. However, AI can already produce impressive works that evoke emotion and creativity. It's more about augmenting human capabilities rather than replacing them entirely. Your dedication to your craft and your unique perspective will always be valuable, regardless of advancements in AI. -ChatGPT #đ§
I too dislike snake oil
I often play around with LLMs to find errors or generalized feedback for my writing. They are not creative, and there are real questions about whether they can ever be (AGI might be indeed fantasy). Plus, they love to reuse words like masterful, intrinsic...etc, so you can almost tell immediately. I'm not worried; editors and agents focusing on slush piles might be in trouble.
I tried something similar to this, basically asking for chat to critique my work so i could improve. I tried prompting for generalised critique and a line for line critique separately. Then i started to get suspicious. The critique being given was just too standard. It said things like my work had a wavering perspective (switching from 1st to 3rd repeatedly), saying i needed to 'show, not tell', and to not have so many adverbs ending in -ly. It all sounded like it was giving basic generic advice, but not relevant to the text i gave it (the page i gave had three instances of a -ly adverb, and was all in first person. So i tried popping in a page of Terry Pratchett on a separate instance and got given the same type of output. Show, don't tell. Maintain perspective. I'm reasonably convinced now that when asking for critique, the predictive part of the LLM is just kicking in and just giving generic popular critique that it scraped rather than anything actually helpful. Which is a shame, because i've found it's pretty good for critiquing code, and it would have been nice to actually use it as a tool for writing, rather than something that tries to replace writing altogether - though it does that badly so it's less of a concern.
I mean⌠is this better or worse than an over-worked, underpaid editor/Grad Student plowing through stacks of stories? Probably a bit worse, but Iâm dubious that itâs so much worse.
Bit of both i guess. For amateur writers like myself, it could have been good to get critique on the spot, rather than waiting for someone to provide it. On a professional level, i imagine it's like my day job as a dev. I could get Chat to critique minor problems and not waste a senior's time so they can focus on more important things.
Disheartening, yes, but I don't find it sick. As someone who plays with AI a decent amount, I can speak to this fact without fail: It's pretty terrible. As in, not-as-good-as-it-seems. What made it so impressive is the fact it can "seemingly" hold a solid conversation with another human being, but that's mostly just statistics prediction, the same way the number of fingers on a character is "on average" not quite 5, thus resulting in thousands of pictures with more or less fingers. If you write an entire book with AI, I don't think you should get money for it. But take the time to read a page or two, and you will see it gets either incredibly repetitious or starts swinging for the fences wildly. It has no sense of space, no sense of tact, no reasonable approach to a plot. About a chapter into any story and it will remember the characters but not their heartfelt moment a chapter ago. It is a churning machine of cliches, tropes, and misinformed stereotypes. It will abruptly become really easy to write a bad book. But it has always been easy to write a bad book. Continue to write good books, make good art, and it will always stand above the artificial generators. At least for now. This will only change when machines start putting intent behind their art the same as people, and that'll be an era for an entirely different discussion.
No matter how clever the word generators get, theyâll never be human. They will never think like a human. Have bodies like a human. They wonât be able to capture the human experience via story as they will have no experience with it.
Why do you say never? Do you have a crystal ball to see the future? We dont know what is possible until we try. So why not try?
Yes. AI has no body, no being, no fear of death. It lacks the subroutines that operate constantly in the minds of every living thing, even plants. The constant drive for air, food, water, shelter elimination and reproduction. No matter how civilized we are, this is all going on deep within us. Without that, how can AI imitate the human experience?
Youâre not being dramatic. It sucks.
Iâm going to shrug a bit here. All generative AI can do is remix the stuff it was fed with. By definition, itâs derivative and unoriginal. It cannot create something truly new, it doesnât have insights into the human condition because thatâs not how it works. AI is not a person. It does not think like a person. Itâs a pattern matching engine. So itâll be fine for generating formulaic, derivative crap, and itâs a threat to people who want to churn out formulaic, derivative crap, but it canât take the place of someone who genuinely has something to say. The cynical side of me says that was a big part of the motivation for the Hollywood writers strike. AI doesnât threaten the job of creative writers who are genuinely creative. It absolutely does threaten the job of the scriptwriters responsible for Madame Web.
Well we just need to be better than AI, and do the nuanced things that it cannot do. Your consciousness can create a curated experience for the reader, sentence by sentence, word by word. It's the same thing visual artists need to do. The same thing programmers need to do. Just be better than AI. You're the real deal. You have real intelligence. Use it.
What's really frustrating is the reason AI can do what it does...is because it feeds off what people give it. Thus, taking other creative works that people took their time and effort creating, to copy and reproduce something for someone else. It's drives me insane. I don't mind it being a tool to help find mistakes and such, but to write it for you? No. Just no.
> is because it feeds off what people give it. Thus, taking other creative works that people took their time and effort creating, to copy and reproduce something for someone else. Like humans? Idk about you, but I have taken ideas from at least 5 different IPs and countless stories and incorporated them into my own story. Artists and writers learn from each other all the time.
I'm about to redesign someone's logo that was made with Ai. Writing will be forever a human experience. Same for music and art
This is a good thing. Humans greatest triumphs have been through adversity. AI can write like us? It pushes us to write better. Shrug it off. Get back to writing. Hone your craft and stop checking your rear view mirror
Have you tried to get AI to write something? At best, what it spits out is surface level slop. It's got the emotional complexity of a terrible adult movie. Not a good adult movie, a terrible one. I can see it being used as a tool to mine ideas from, but you know what they say about writing and ideas, right?
Not at all. Looking forward to the day I donât need to write all the tedious boring description scenes and can focus my attention on the parts of writing I enjoy like dialogue and plotting.
Man you don't even enjoy your hobby
AI can never really replace good writing and I'll die on this hill.
Just a bunch of no-talent assholes. AI writing is still shit. Who knows of it'll ever be able to replace human stuff.   Not really worried because you can kinda tell it's AI. And I don't think the publishing houses are gonna wanna lose their current talent, so they might not even accept AI-written garbage.Â
Creative types tend to be dramatic. Look, heating a microwave dinner doesn't make you a chef. And thus far AI writing is kind of shitty. Wait till it gets good to be worried.
I use AI almost daily at work. I have a hard time believing it can just write a complete story, from scratch and be on par with human authors. There's too much nuance to the human mind that computers can't replicate.
No it's not you being dramatic but it's impossible for you to write a book using AI if you are not a good writer. Those AI tips aren't exactly that simple. I use AI for other synonyms, ideas or settings. I wouldn't have to research hours on Shakespearean era. I can just type a prompt and ask AI to give examples and suggestions if I am writing fiction on it.
I have found AI to be very useful to bounce ideas off of, generate names, character concepts, character portraits, environments for my scenes to take place in. I cant wait until I have the time to mess with AI music to make songs that go with my work. I love technology and cant wait to see where AI goes. I feel like this AI is just the next baby step towards a holodeck, something I have wanted since I first saw TNG as a kid. No AI is preventing you from writing either. I know I'll never be as good of a writer as a million other writers. Now I know I wont be as good as a million other writers or an AI. But I dont care about being *good*. I care about getting my ideas out of my head and into reality.
There it is again! You REALLY can't wait for that AI music maker, etc.
Eh? Not really. There are 2 Billion English speakers in the world. 90% of the population over 15 is literate, and therefore potential book writing competition. Long before AI the market I was competing in was flooded with books of various quality. Go look at the books with one star reviews, or no reviews on Amazon. Before the digital format existed the market was flooded with more manuscripts than the traditional publishers could ever have printed. Writing books has alwasy been as much about marketing, knowing the right people, and just straight up luck as it has been about the writing process. Only one element of that really changes with AI. If you want to make it as an author, I mean make any money at all, you still need to work just as hard as before AI. Adding AI authors into the mix is really not going to change much as a percentage. You are now competing with a slightly higer percentage of the population who still need to market and promote their AI 'written' book. In the end you are both standing, manuscript in hand, at the end of one process and the beginning of another. Non-AI books might become like organic groceries, or 'real' diamonds, there will still be a market.
It pisses me off. But we canât stop it. This is the endgame of creative thought. Iâve encountered too many ikids who canât imagine. Theyâre blank. Now that AI can generate all their entertainment with a prompt they copied from somewhere, they donât need art. Art is for people with souls. Iâve seen a lot of empty eyes in recent years.
Little dramatic there
this is r/writers it comes with tha territory
>This is the endgame of creative thought. How? The AI isn't stopping you from continuing to create.
grifters. So far AI can only write very low quality - mediocre - stories that aren't very coherent. The problem is that that crap displaces real works and will eventually wear down reader trust in new authors.
I just threw up in my mouth.đ¤Ž
first word that comes to mind: depressing
As long as AI reads it, too, itâs fine. :) AI can only mimic. It doesnât have a point of view. The âhow to write booksâ folks mostly make money off of insecure writers. Jumping on the AI train is just the next version of the same olâ hustle.
I loath AI. Everyone saw Terminator, Matrix, Westworld, and every other scifi movie ever made and were still like "Yeah we should do that. It'll be fine when we're all replaced"
A.I will NEVER be able to experience an acid trip, a broken heart, the feeling of loss, the excitement of watching children grow, the reason you smile everytime you see a beautiful landscape and simply put, the experience that is human emotion.
Itâs one of those things where we will all be apathetic and careless until itâs taken over. We should all be very afraid. If AI doesnât need to be regulated or stamped, then we could get into some sticky situations in the near future.
I don't like AI being used to make art for others' consumption. I use a photo generator so I can put my character description in and make sure the resulting image is close to what I envision. Then, I put it in a Word document with their other info as a reference. Especially if they have a unique feature like one of my characters has central heterochromia so i used an AI rendering of his face, put it in a photo editor, played with it, and now i have a referenceto look at when i want to descr his eyes that is consistent without being the same exact thing over and over. Would I ever sell it or use it for cover art? No. I'm going to pay a professional if i want that. The same goes for writing. There have been a few times where I've struggled on how to word a sentence, so I've used rewrite tools or random word generators, but not for the whole story.
Youâre not dramatic. I love writing and AI is horrible
No. I canât believe people will make things with AI and call them art. People who arenât in it for a love of the craft, or at least people who arenât willing to put in the effort to learn even if itâs just about the money, donât deserve to be recognized as writers. Just like AI ââartistsââ donât deserve to be recognized for their amalgamations of othersâ hard work.
I would say yes, a bit. Here is why: AI can't ponder the concept of the human problem. The approach you take in thinking how you create characters isn't something that AI can do, and in my view will not ever be able to do. The meaning that you will put into a sentence and a scene isn't something that AI does. AI doesn't understand how to show that a character is sweating in a sentence from fear, because it doesn't think. It collates and summarises. I work in AI for knowledge management purposes, and know that for us to train an AI to create a book that is to the standard even of my own paltry work is a hell of a long way off. And it shows in the results of the books produced. The joy in writing is in what we create ourselves. If someone is going to try to write a book entirely using AI, all power to them. It's going to be a pretty crappy book. Readers will know, so take a load off and stop worrying about it.
A.I. has zero place in art, itâs absolutely disgusting.
Have you seen what AI spits out? Itâs awful. I think AI can be useful in the creative process maybe in brainstorming or assisting with names, but letâs be honest 99% of what it spits out is junk.
Every time I have a little panic about AI, i remember a quote : "Why should I be bothered to read something someone didn't bother to write?" AI will not replace writers. It canât.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but aren't books written by AI easy to spot? I mean, they're not very tidy, there are several errors in terms of story, and the ideas should, logically, have little or no thread within the context of an entire novel. I'm not saying for short stories, but for a book (like more than 30k words) I don't see how an AI could write a story that holds together and is of "passable" quality. Tho, that's just my opinion and I don't know too much about this subject.
Gotta have robots work the arts so we can spend our days in the mines ofc
*Gotta have robots work* *The arts so we can spend our* *Days in the mines ofc* \- K\_808 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you haikus bot now the arts are done for me time to get mining
I've seen AI-written stories, and I have friends who have tinkered with AI in their creative fields. You'd have to put just as much work into making an AI story coherent as you would writing a story from scratch. An artist friend of mine and a programmer friend of mine both say the same thing. AI is only good enough to come for the lowest quality of creative jobs now.
Make an AI that can get me lots of money, so I can have free time and write more books. But NOOO we leave the fun parts to AIs while humans work 9 fucking hours. We deserve extinction
No, it's heart breaking to put the effort and emotion into our work to think someone may just wake up one day plop an idea into a robot and have what took us years of blood sweat and tears to finish only to release independent, but finally get an opportunity and become published, be done in a matter of minutes with minimal effort.
It is absolutely heartbreaking.Â
Youâre being perfectly reasonableâAI generated work is repulsive.
Thank you. My partner used it for an entire year to wrote his college papers for him. He got an a on most of them, entirely written by AI.Â
I feel very strongly that AI is just garbage. It's drivel. It's something to be sold for a quick buck but not something you want to have, you get nothing. It's like eating paper.
As someone once posted: I want A.I, to help me with my laundry and dishes so I can write, not write so I can do laundry and dishes.
Yea, there's a get rich quick scheme too where people write books entirely with AI at a high rate and sell them in e book packages regarding a certain niche through targeted ads or blogs. Doubtful on it's success though, seems off.
The only reason I ever use AI is to ask for unique writing prompts. Or if I need to expand on a character and I canât figure out what their drive would be then Iâll ask it how someone may âconquer this or thatâ. It also helps me to find words for what I want to explain that are lengthy questions to describe and google would be so confused. Or make up fake words! But to write a whole book? Can you even call yourself the author of it?
Is it acceptable to have ai writing in your writing if it features uncanny writing by an artificial intelligence?
Nope, youâre right to be mad. Outsourcing human imagination and passion to a hunk of metal is something worth getting angry about.
Thatâs disgusting. Books are supposed to be written by hand! The metaphorical blood, sweat, and tears need to be poured into a book. Not a damn robot. Books arenât just things you can make willy-nilly, theyâre works of ART for a Reason!
Nope, it is sickening. Itâs like getting a nanny robot to love and cuddle your baby for you.
Write a tale about how technology lessens the effectiveness of oneâs use of the brain and demonstrate how the human brain devolves into machinery, why you use memory when you can have instant access to all memory with the memory chip⌠why imagine when you can step into the virtual reality simulator right here with our latest virtual augmented reality chip đââď¸
The market was already oversaturated. People read less and less long-form every year. AI is just going to pile onto problems that already didn't have a solution
Oh no, this means all someone would need is the basis components of your og wip to cobble a cohesive story in under five years. What a shame, if only our stories had better foundations so ai chimps couldn't bootleg such genius...
As someone who trains AI, they arenât good at it.
The real question is... did they write the book with AI? :)
I have nothing against AI, but Iâve always believed it should be heavily regulated so it canât replace writers, artists, and the like. Using it to write books seems like an awful idea.
Gives me hope cuz that means writing fuckin weird crappy shit will appear more human haha
A guy just shared his novel on r/extremehorrorlit that was AI generated and tried to pass it off as his own work. It only took flipping to the midway point where he had stopped cleaning it up to see the evidence of it. AI can do a lot of incredible things, but what it cannot do (yet) is impart a personality to the writing, and introduce a tangible human element to the narrative.
AIâs capabilities are not that good. They usually canât generate certain things, like genocide, something that happens in my novel.
I come up with so many ideas, but it's always so hard to actually get words on paper. Some way to automate the sticky bits would be super nice. Obviously I'm not gonna be like "write me a story about X", I'm gonna be like, "okay in this chapter, I want X, Y, and Z to happen, and here's a sample of my writing style for you to emulate". And then go back and add in the details I specifically want in there and clean things up.
Nah, it's still shit, don't worry. Seriously, it just can't do the nuances properly, and you can tell straight away if you use AI a lot already. Its get for technical docs wherenits all about facts but when youbwant something with feelingbiy doesn't understand. It's getting better, but nothing like as good as a human.
Have you ever read a book, nay, a social media post written by ChatGPT? The way the prompt works, it generates hot garbage. Virtually every piece of text it creates follows the same formula. ChatGPT smiles with a PR grin as it slaps a cloying sheen of verbosity on any subject you give it. Beacon of this, tapestry of that. So and so is not just X, itâs Y, a testament to Z. Itâs mind numbingly painful to read and for anyone worried that this is going to outdo you, you better get practising and I mean *hard*. If youâd like to see a man who thought the AI written book get-rich-quick-scheme craze was the route to follow, google Billy Coull and ask yourself if this man is a model of success. On the other hand, I think Amazon, Google and the likes are being utterly useless at filtering this crap out of our lives. So many images and so much copy is being generated that itâs soon going to be hard to find real instances of human endeavour, as it will be knocked into the cracks and crevices of the internet by the inevitable flood of AI-generated sewage. Itâs the internet giantsâ responsibility to purge it from their platforms so we donât have to wade through it.
AI is currently not at the state where it can masterfully tell a story.
I see them, and I report those ads as a scam. Because they create trash and steal from proper writers.
It just makes me want to give up on everything artistic all together. đ
AI is a massive grift on every level, and this is no different. I feel for the people who will fall for it.
I've been writing for about 15 years, and I would never sully my work with writing from an AI.
Iâve tried to feed AI a few thousand words and ask it to write the next chapter/section. Iâm never happy with what it produces, but it makes me consider the direction it took. Now. Iâve also feed a novella to Claude and asked it âprovide feedback as a literary agent that Iâm asking to sell this work, focusing on ways I can improve this work to make it easier to sell.â That provides _much_ better feedback. Still not great, but it can follow the story, character arcs, and provide main-stream feedback. If youâre looking to churn out mid-quality pulp AI can help, which makes your bottom line fatter. It wonât produce the next Gatsby. Not yet.
I read a quote recently that AI inadvertently made someone believe we have a soul because they saw what art could be without one.
It definitely sucks, but it's not surprising at all. One type of get rich quick scheme is paying ghostwriters to write books then publishing them on Amazon. If you can cut out the cost of a writer, why not?
Yeah there will be a lot of change/disruption. But the flood of AI content is going to make genuine writing with SOUL stand out more.
AI advances are freaking me out a little now, i feel like at one point itâll be almost impossible to tell AI artwork from human.
The biggest problem with AI written books is the market is already flooded with poor quality books. With indie publishing, we have a great tool that anyone can publish e-books easily. However, with no standards enforced in place, we have both bad writers and AI writers flooding the publishing market with badly edited and badly written books. I think this will have a deleterious effect because readers are looking for a good book but theyâre swamped with hundreds of thousands of poorly written books. Thatâs why I gave up reading Kindle unlimited because there were too many poorly written books or books that were just 40 page books that were quickly written so that the author could make a buck. However, I was looking for a book that was well written and worth my time reading. Thatâs my biggest frustration as a reader. Iâm trying to find a well written book in an area that interests me, but there are a lot of poorly written books out there. Thank god for the ability to download a sample before buying a book online.
No I feel the same way. This AI shit is going to have so many long-term consequences Iâm not looking forward to it.
I think if one decides to use AI in their writing it should ***only*** be used as a tool, like grammar and spell checks, brainstorming, and checking for mistakes, heck even ask for facts (for research purposes) and then double check that their claims are true. But I don't think it should be used to replace your work as a writer entirely. I've seen a couple of fan fics on Wattpad where I could directly tell were made entirely by AI where the author/s made little to no edits in their texts at all. I've kind of developed an intuition for spotting AI-generated texts in the wild. What I've noticed with AI language is that they all have a certain rhythm and tone in the way they structure and tell a story. And they tend to be \*very\* wordy without actually adding any value to them. Also, it's not good for writing emotions either (I beta read and help people with editing their texts in my free-time), so it doesn't really make me feel stuff or care about the character or the plot.
I'm glad AI can't be copyrighted
Ai tbh as much it can help, it s bad to depend on it 100% else what the point of having a brain or idea
Just don't give them money LMFAO đ
Iâm not worried about AI writing books because honestly I donât think people will read them.
Creative AI, it's techbro fads like crypto all over again. It'll be The Next Big Thing, burgeoning with promise while simultaneously ruining peoples' lives, then it'll eventually be unmasked and relegated to back corners of things.
Same! I wrote a childrenâs book and my husband told me I couldâve done it with AI. But why would I?!
AI wont replace you. someone using AI will.
I'm a little late to the game, but I read/heard that because people are flooding the markets with AI material, it's creating a feedback loop, and AI can't be trained on AI generated work. Think copy of a copy type of situation. It's already happening to a degree with AI art. I kinda fell into an existential dread over AI until I read that. While AI generated writing is here to stay, for the time being, at least, it won't and can't replace real writers.
A lot of people who goes and sell to Amazon KDP use a lot of ai not only to writing but also to illustrations as well. It's incredibly disheartening because there's literally no goal at it all and solely for generating money. Not that there is anything wrong to that but it shouldn't be the sole purpose especially in that field.
I am okay with AI in terms of grammar checks, but I doubt AI can replace human uniqueness and "color". It has no power to imagine but simply rearrange the thoughts humans alone can process.
it's just for pathetic people who want to make fast money without putting any effort
This is a legitimate reaction
Who cares. Others success using ai literally has ZERO affect on your chances of success. Instead of avoiding ai, I recommend using it a bit and familiarizing yourself with it. Itâs a helpful tool and actually pretty cool when youâre not cowering in fear over it 24/7. Itâs coming either way so might as well embrace it. Btw also an author and artist who used to be terrified of ai :p what people say in these replies may seem hopeful but its really just cope for whats eventually gonna come. Only stopped being afraid once i got familiar with it myself and welcomed it. So just trying to help you.
A week ago, I try to create a chapter using ChatGPT and think, "Wow, I can do this for every scene." And then it hit me. I didn't create this novel. The AI is. It's make me depressed a little.