Using AI for writing?

[Eddi]

Yes, and that is a good source of information as well. Again, unlike you, I care about whether the information is useful and correct more than whether it comes from a human or not. That to me is rather irrelevant, humans are just, if not more likely to give you wrong information.

Also, I would happily read a piece of literature by @Nimos

But not if it had any input from an AI

When I read a book I want to read something by a human with a brain, not soulless inhuman dross shat out by an AI

 

[Nimos]

Yet it cannot understand anything

It's bluffing

It impersonates a person who understands

I would never use it for help

It's a poor substitute that detracts from any work's artistic merit

Agree, it has no understanding. But again, I don't think it matters if the information is correct.

When you search on the internet for information, you "hope" that what you read is true and whoever wrote it actually knows what they are talking about. But unless you already know a lot about a topic, you might be fooled as well.

 

[Eddi]

Agree, it has no understanding. But again, I don't think it matters if the information is correct.

When you search on the internet for information, you "hope" that what you read is true and whoever wrote it actually knows what they are talking about. But unless you already know a lot about a topic, you might be fooled as well.

That's not the same as writing something for others to read

 

[Nimos]

In a very broad sense, perhaps. But if what you're looking for is feedback on art, or any kind of creative or artistic input, then by definition AI cannot provide that. It can, at the absolute most, reproduce a LIKENESS of what feedback of input looks like. That is it. It is, quantatively and qualitatively, nothing compared to actual feedback from actual humans.

100% agree, as I said, you don't get meaningful feedback on whether something is good or not. And in honesty, I think it is very difficult in general even for humans when it comes to art. Some art you like and some you don't. But writing is also a craftmanship, writing something in certain ways and how to construct a story is not art. If you wrote a story and it was just one long drag for the first 150 pages, it would be considered an awful book and most likely you would have lost all readers. Obviously how you make use of words etc. I think could be considered art or at least to some degree.

There's the problem, right there. "Holt a lot of information on how to write effective stories". That's what kills art.

AI cannot interpret or express an effect that writing has, because AI definitionally cannot respond meaningfully to art. The process of creating art is not a mathematical model that, if you just put the right words in the right place, you create good art. Art is about communicating an idea from one thinking and processing brain to another.

But again, this is the craftsmanship of writing, the techniques. I think you could compare it, to learning to paint, you need to know about colors and how to use a brush, the materials etc. But that has nothing to do with art.

Regardless of whether or not it falls under fair use, I would still argue it is essentially no better than plagiarism with additional steps. The principle, that it is drawing upon the words of others without acknowledgement, remains the same.

I don't really have a strong opinion about it, it is so far out of my reach anyway. Meaning that this is big business and political and will be solved in court anyway, whether one is against it or not, I don't really think matters. Obviously one has to decide with oneself if they due to principles don't want to use it. Again, I only use it for personal things, and even if the book should ever be completed I would have no problems trying to publish it, again I don't see how it could hurt anyone.

I vehemently disagree. We are already hearing talk of movie studios and publishers doing away with writers entirely, and people who use AI to "produce" their "art" are already getting featured and earning spotlight from real, actual artists.

Again, I think one could make the argument that art especially movies hasn't been there for a long time, it is more of a money machine of "cheap" entertainment than anything else. There is nothing even remotely artistic about the movies being written today. Maybe some independent movies, but not any of the mainstream ones.

If publishers are using AI, then nothing will really change I think. Because in that case, I think more authors will simply start to self-publish, using the very same tools. And you will get new ways to sell your stuff.
Don't get me wrong, as if I'm saying that there aren't any problems, because if there aren't already it will come. I have no doubt about it, AI is still in the process of being integrated into everything and it is constantly improving. But that is the reality of things.

I argue it does matter. It matters very much to the lives and livelihoods of millions of artists.

But the chance is, that if these couldn't write interesting books already, it doesn't matter.

If you are a painter and no one likes what you paint, then it doesn't matter if 100s people generate paintings using AI.
You could obviously make the argument that it will be harder to be seen in a world where everyone can use AI to generate stuff. Again, we don't know how this will turn out or what might happen.

And again most of those losing their livelihoods due to AI, are those working in production, making stuff for games, commercials, movies etc. But I don't know think I would categorize this is being an artist, as much as a craftsman.

This sort of thinking is happening in many industries right now, believe me.

I know especially in the bigger companies that have the money to integrate it.

But you're not just doing that. You're trying to get specific and detailed feedback on your creative writing.

Yes, again the craftmanship. The creativity, for the most part, I think is the story you are telling. Obviously, there might be some to the way you write, but not all books aim for this and just want to tell a good story.

If you can make that assessment yourself, then I believe you don't need AI.

I can and I will, but again, that doesn't mean that the AI can't highlight things that I might miss.

I will gladly let you know I'd be willing to look over anything you have written.

Perfect, Ill keep that in mind when (if) I reach a point where I need it. I would appreciate that.

 

[Nimos]

That's not the same as writing something for others to read

No, but when it comes to learning how to write. Im not a professional writer, I just wing it and have fun with it. And therefore gather information whenever I am in doubt etc.

 

[Eddi]

No, but when it comes to learning how to write. Im not a professional writer, I just wing it and have fun with it. And therefore gather information whenever I am in doubt etc.

Wouldn't reading books written by humans to learn how good things are written be more artistically valid than using AI?

 

[Nimos]

Wouldn't reading books written by humans to learn how good things are written be more artistically valid than using AI?

Yes, but if AI is trained on these things, I don't see a huge difference or why you wouldn't make use of both. I don't understand this one or the other thing?

To me it sounds like you could just as well make the argument, that one should only read things on websites because watching YT is bad. If both hold valuable information then use both, that seems to make the most sense to me.

I have watched a lot of YT videos about how to write, what not to do etc. Its not like it ONLY AI and screw humans

 

[libre]

Does anyone use AI for writing and if you do, which are you using and what experiences have you made from it, good and bad?

I have occasionally asked an AI on how to word things professionally.

'Copilot, how do I tell my coworker 'this isn't my job' without seeming combative'.
'How do I tell them that the lack of planning on their end does not constitute an emergency on my side in a professional manner?'

Sometimes provides fruitful results.

 

[Eddi]

Yes, but if AI is trained on these things

"Trained" implies that it learnt and understands

In reality it has done neithet of those things

To me it sounds like you could just as well make the argument, that one should only read things on websites because watching YT is bad.

Things on YouTube are human artefacts even though they exist only in digital form

 

[Nimos]

I have occasionally asked an AI on how to word things professionally.

'Copilot, how do I tell my coworker 'this isn't my job' without seeming combative'.
'How do I tell them that the lack of planning on their end does not constitute an emergency on my side in a professional manner?'

Sometimes provides fruitful results.

Yeah, that is useful, also I have used it for legal documents. Which is mostly gibberish, to make it simply sum up and explain what on earth they are talking about

 

[Nimos]

"Trained" implies that it learnt and understands

In reality it has done neithet of those things

I can only echo what I have said, that is what it is called, I didn't decide it.

Things on YouTube are human artefacts even though they exist only in digital form

Clearly

But again, I don't understand this one or the other mentality, except if one due to principle is opposed to AI just for being AI. Which is fair, I just don't get it.

 

[Eddi]

I can only echo what I have said, that is what it is called, I didn't decide it.


Clearly

But I again, I don't understand this one or the other mentality, except if one due to principle is opposed to AI just for being AI. Which is fair, I just don't get it.

I think the main issue is that it makes a thing inauthentic

I think a thing is only art if done by a human

There is nothing intelligent about AI

Why would I want to read a non intelligently produced book?

 

[Nimos]

I think the main issue is that it makes a thing inauthentic

I think a thing is only art if done by a human

There is nothing intelligent about AI

Why would I want to read a non intelligently produced book?

I think it depends what you are doing.

If you are making images, it is extremely random due to how the technology works. It is almost like throwing dice and hoping for the best. You do have some control, but it is very rare that the AI generates the vision you have in your head, so you have to just accept a lot of randomness.

And it is a bit the same with music, you have limited control.

But I think when it comes to writing it is a lot different because you have full control on top of the AI. Take the story above and we wanted to make it our own, you could change it so much to your liking that I think you could make it authentic even if you didn't initially write it. But if the original idea is your own, I think it is very much authentic, due to you having this complete control, it's not like making images and you just keep generating and hoping that eventually, it creates something that you envisioned.

Whether it is art or not, I again think is difficult to say because art is so unrestricted. I would agree, that I wouldn't be impressed by the "artist", its not like I would go, "Damn you are good at creating cool images or music", but it wouldn't take away from something looking interesting or sounding good. That is probably where I think the biggest difference is for me.

I agree, AI is not intelligent, it is a sophisticated Wiki

You might read the book because it tells a good story, just as you might enjoy music, even having no clue who the musician is. Most of the music I hear on the radio, I have absolutely no clue who made it, it could just as well be AI, and honestly, I don't think I would care, but then again, I'm not a music freak, I enjoy music a lot, but that's it. And besides that a lot of music is more or less computer generated anyway, just samples put together, whether that is done by AI or a human isn't a huge issue for me.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I use it in my creative writing, for example, when I have random questions that I can't simply find on Google: questions related to police force work, government functions, what was happening in Albania in 1817, and various other things I need specific, random details on.

I also use it to help rephrase things. I don't do this often because I like my own authenticity, but if I feel like something could be phrased in a better way I might ask GPT to do it. For the seldom times I do this, I'll only use it as a guideline instead of copy+pasting what GPT rephrased it as.

I'll use it to come up with better words to describe things, adjectives usually.

 

[Eddi]

I just saw this on Facebook, it made me think of this thread