AI as a Writing. Tool

I see that's your first post Drew Hardy. Welcome to the forum.

Please check the I am human box if you are.  

Here's what I foresee: Autocomplete is a primitive form of AI. When ChatGPT is a service on your phone and can offer you the word you're probably reaching for, but might improve on the choice you would have made, and you choose it instead, all talk of AI assisted writing will go out the window.

I saw Amazon got flooded with 'AI' generated novels and plenty made the bestsellers lists. Hopefully they've sorted that out, or else genuine authors get an even smaller share of the Kindle Unlimited pie.

I was interested by some of the actual titles though:

When the three attacks
Apricot bar code architecture
The journey to becoming enlightened is arduous
Department of Vinh Du Stands in Front of His Parents’ Tombstone
The God Tu mutters
Jessica's Attention
Fanatical Leader

Some interesting writing prompts at the very least!

Those titles are quite humorous!  

TBH, the only reason I haven't started self-publishing, Amazon or otherwise, is my sense that the avid readers of those markets are seeking junk food. 

I'm not writing that. 

@alexh You've touched on some critical points regarding the limitations and potential of AI, and I couldn't agree more with your insights. ?? While AI-generated content has its uses, it currently struggles to replicate the nuances and creativity that make a truly engaging story. The output might be generic, repetitive, or even contain errors, which makes it unsuitable for professional publishing or as a replacement for good writers.

You've rightly highlighted the issue of AI's training data being based on "Big Data," which can perpetuate biases and lack individual or nuanced perspectives. It's crucial to recognize these shortcomings and strive for improvement while being cautious about the potential negative impacts on society.

Despite its limitations, AI has its role as a tool that can assist writers, generate ideas, or even automate certain tasks like summarizing texts. However, it will never replace the essence of human creativity and imagination in crafting exceptional stories.

On the technological side, I appreciate your insights into the costs and benefits of AI development. The data generated by users can indeed help improve AI systems, but it's essential to strike a balance between innovation and ethical considerations.

As for AI's impact on art generation, you've raised valid concerns. It's essential for society and the legal system to catch up with these technological advancements to protect artists' rights and creative expressions.

Overall, AI's evolution is an exciting journey, but it should be seen as a valuable tool rather than a replacement for human creativity and talent. Let's continue exploring the ways AI can help writers and other creative professionals while ensuring that ethical and social considerations remain at the forefront of its development. ??

Posted by: @johnalex20

↑

it will never replace the essence of human creativity

Never is rather a long time. Not in twenty-thousand years? Never EVER?

Speaking of writing tools, this proofreader is super reliable- do try it out!

Posted by: @ellisael

↑

Speaking of writing tools, this proofreader is super reliable- do try it out!

Thank you for sharing, looks interesting. 

I'm leery of online writing tools with so much legaleze that it's hard to find/understand.

This section (under their Content You Submit; Interactive Community Rules) reads to me that by using the "tool", they have the right to store, alter, and use any User-Generated Content. So, submit and they store whatever you submitted and then can use it.  

Without limitation, the granted rights include the right to: (A) configure, host, index, cache, archive, store, digitize, compress, optimize, modify, reformat, edit, adapt, publish in searchable format, and remove such UGC and combine same with other materials, and (B) use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any UGC for any purposes whatsoever, including developing, producing, and marketing products and/or services. 

Posted by: @toddjones

↑

Posted by: @ellisael

↑

Speaking of writing tools, this proofreader is super reliable- do try it out!

Thank you for sharing, looks interesting. 

I'm leery of online writing tools with so much legaleze that it's hard to find/understand.

This section (under their Content You Submit; Interactive Community Rules) reads to me that by using the "tool", they have the right to store, alter, and use any User-Generated Content. So, submit and they store whatever you submitted and then can use it.  

Without limitation, the granted rights include the right to: (A) configure, host, index, cache, archive, store, digitize, compress, optimize, modify, reformat, edit, adapt, publish in searchable format, and remove such UGC and combine same with other materials, and (B) use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any UGC for any purposes whatsoever, including developing, producing, and marketing products and/or services. 

 

 

That looks as though they are scraping your work to train their AI with, with your permission. The bit I've bolded appears to give them publishing rights too.

That's a big ask for a glorified spell check that doesn't seem to do anything more than standard Word does.

The best way to improve your writing is to write, read, and write some more. There are plenty of people around (real live breathing ones) who will take a look at your work and give you advice based on experience and not some arbitrary algorithm without uploading and losing it to these types of parasites.

Posted by: @angelslayah

↑

TBH, the only reason I haven't started self-publishing, Amazon or otherwise, is my sense that the avid readers of those markets are seeking junk food. 

I'm not writing that. 

The self-publishing world is a large enough ocean with so many varied interests that you can write whatever you like, stick it in a bottle, and be sure it will wash up on someone's beach. You don't have to write junk if you don't want to; lots of other routes you can go if you want to self-publish.

Posted by: @sazer1

↑

Regarding your prompt and the generated responses, it's interesting to see how the AI interprets the scenario you provided. While the generated texts capture some elements of the story, they may lack the depth and nuance that can be achieved through human storytelling. The directness of the responses might be attributed to the nature of AI-generated text, which focuses on providing a coherent output rather than exploring narrative complexities.

However, it's important to note that AI systems are continually evolving, and with time, they may become more adept at incorporating elements like delay and narrative resistance into their generated texts. These advancements have the potential to assist writers in their creative process, offering new perspectives and ideas.

Ultimately, AI-generated text can be viewed as a tool that can support and inspire writers, but it shouldn't replace the craft, talent, and technique that human writers bring to the table. It's through our unique abilities and experiences that we can create narratives that resonate deeply with readers.

Thank you for sharing your observations and analysis. It's through discussions like these that we can explore the possibilities and implications of AI-generated text in the realm of storytelling.

Speaking of AI's...

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

stick it in a bottle, and be sure it will wash up on someone's beach.

I like the metaphor. I may have misspoke, tho, or reconsidered since: 

I'm afraid I'd let myself write junk. The temptation to say "good enough!" and go live with whatever I've got, I fear, would be too great!

I've done some serious thinking about just where the no AI assistance rule comes to play.

1. I ask an AI a question or read something somebody else got from an AI. Some line sticks in my head, eventually leading to a story idea.

2. While testing out an AI, I ask questions as though I am my main character. It gives me advice that I realize would actually make a great standard emergency procedure to be in place for the character to either disregard and risk the consequences or else to be the first try before she goes on to something more interesting.

3. I ask an AI to translate a line to another language so as to have something realistic for my character to hear and not understand.

4. I have a philosophical conversation with an AI and use this to help develop a government or religion or political party to exist in my story's world.

5. I name my characters' school and/or the company they work for off of a list I have an AI generate for me.

All of those situations are me getting assistance from AI. So should I not submit any stories where I do anything like that to markets where AI assistance is banned? Should some be allowed and not others?

I forgot one.

6. I test an AI's fiction-writing capabilities by feeding it a writing prompt. The result makes very little sense. So I think about how I would fix it and end up with a plot bearing no resemblance to the initial output beyond the parts specified in the prompt.

@atkirk

That's a nice set of use-cases! I reckon none of them are detectable, and remind me of constructions of 'fair use' for work in copyright: if it can't be recognized, it can't be litigated!

But your scenarios really demonstrate the, I wana say 'phobia' apparent in some markets' new AI policies. 

To be clearer than they can be, tho. I think what it cooks down to for them really is: they can't afford to have bots generating and automatically submitting hundreds of thousands of stories, something which could be accomplished with technical ease. 

I have yet to use AI in any way in my work. I'm focusing on some things it couldn't help me with, for one thing (how to develop understanding or knowledge within the reader without them necessarily knowing how they know it -that 's my main thing right now)

But when I do begin to incorporate it, and I'm certain I shall, I wouldn't hesitate to use it in any of the cases you mention! 

I use Texta and Simplified. I can say that they're helpful when approached with a clear understanding of their capabilities and limitations. They can be particularly useful for generating ideas, exploring alternative story directions, or overcoming writer's block.
As for their pricing, it's listed here, along with other AI tools.

I agree that there's a certain finesse to storytelling that AI-generated text may not fully capture yet. Nonetheless, as AI continues to advance, I believe there's great potential for it to complement human creativity rather than replace it.

Big tech has already invested and begun programs to develop it. It now has a life and competitive forces will grow it. I've seen silicon valley fever make money out of crap and people flock to it.

Posted by: @angelslayah

↑

@atkirk

But your scenarios really demonstrate the, I wana say 'phobia' apparent in some markets' new AI policies. 

 

It's not a phobia, it's because these markets know damned well that millions of artists and writers have had their work scraped and stolen to feed these monsters!

It is just not ethical. Only people who can't write will use AI to write. Only people who can't paint or draw will use it to create an image.

Number crunching for medical and scientific research, saving the planet, great. AI can do that, and should, but AI has no place in the arts.

@pdblake 

I teach digital art. It's definitely not "drawing" but is it not art? 

Generative AI is definitely (currently) a much, MUCH worse writer than I am. I wouldn't (currently) consider letting it write a single line, develop a character or plot point, much less a whole scene or even story.

But if someone consults it, for stories they intend to write, about the speed of gravitational waves —for instance— to question it about Feynman Diagrams or the possible physics of time travel, they're definitely "using it". 

Should they then refrain from submitting to markets that demand a declaration that AI was not used? 
Does such a demand begin to look "phobic?"

I totally understand a market wanting to stem the tide of submission bots. But "Are you now or have you ever been a user of AI?" reeks a bit, historically speaking.

Will: I think your signature quote is missing a word. "Be" maybe?

Posted by: @rw-span

↑

The glass can half full or half empty, who cares. The glass is simply too large.

Posted by: @angelslayah

↑

@pdblake 

I teach digital art. It's definitely not "drawing" but is it not art? 

It's art if you're doing it yourself, but honestly I think you're splitting hairs.  

Posted by: @angelslayah

↑

But if someone consults it, for stories they intend to write, about the speed of gravitational waves —for instance— to question it about Feynman Diagrams or the possible physics of time travel, they're definitely "using it". 

Should they then refrain from submitting to markets that demand a declaration that AI was not used? 

If the guidelines say no, they mean no. Simple as that. Personally I won't submit anywhere that allows AI. 

@angelslayah thanks for saving my azz! My brain always runs faster than my fingers when typing.

Posted by: @angelslayah

↑

I teach digital art. It's definitely not "drawing" but is it not art? 

I know a couple of digital artists. Instead of paper sketch pads and pencils, they use digital tablets and styluses. They still sketch, shade, line work, coloring, final renderings ... how is that NOT drawing?

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

 

...how is that NOT drawing?

 

 What you're describing clearly is. What I teach is largely not. Digital art from pure code, for instance. And I don't think it will surprise anyone that we use Copilot, a generative AI, or even Chat GPT to help us with our code.

But I assure you; it remains 'art'. 

I'm qualified to say! 

Posted by: @alexh

↑

Basically, all ChatGPT and these other language models do is predict the probability of next words.

I wanted to come back to this very clear and cogent statement. 

It is true however that text compression (this may be surprising) has for some  time been seen as a pretty tough AI problem. CF the Hutter Prize!