Why use AI to write your "book"?

[Madmcgee]

I might be missing something in the meaning here.

Wouldn't that magic box actually be that AI program the person is using to give the prompt?

I've seen a similar reaction to Artists that have been dealing with AI art for a long time now. Many would probably fight over the concept of an AI artist.

As for how artists feel about it, coming from someone who has a friend in graphic design, he loves it. AI, at least where it is right now, can't really capture what makes a complex 'new' composition, be it writing or a picture, special.

It can do faces and anime and a basic pose here and there, car's and a cute big-headed kitten standing on a ball of yarn, but ask it to do anything more involved than one or two people? It just doesn't understand that right now, like a lot of people think it does.

If you see a really crazy picture done up by AI, its not the AI that's making it special, its the person throwing dozens or more hours, even days into it in photoshop/gimp or w/e other program they are using. It still needs a human driving the wheel.

I think that's why a lot of people try to use AI to write.

Maybe they suck at it, I certainly know my spelling and grammar was terrible when I started. But people don't always have time to learn a new hobby and AI is the easy 'in' for them to work with.

As was said, a way for them to 'produce' what they see as a story in their head that their skills cant yet manifest.

Does it suck that peoples work gets stolen? Yeah, but that shits been happening forever, just look at all the people who priate movies/tv shows.

Does it suck that something that looks like AI gets on trending? Meh...

If the story is so good that tons of people flock to it and devour every tidbit there is, and you still think it's AI, then every AI story should be getting the same attention, no? Again, there's a human behind that story that actually makes it worthwhile.
And no, I am not defending AI, or its use, and especially not because my most popular story is about an 'AI'

I don't think I'm compromised--yet...

 

[CharlesEBrown]

If you see a really crazy picture done up by AI, its not the AI that's making it special, its the person throwing dozens or more hours, even days into it in photoshop/gimp or w/e other program they are using. It still needs a human driving the wheel.

I think that's why a lot of people try to use AI to write.

About a month ago, maybe two, I got into a discussion with a guy who had been part of Microsoft's attempt to get an AI system going (ChatGPT beat them to market with a product that was about six months ahead of them, two months before they were ready to release anything, and the entire unit was disbanded). He said 90% of the issues people have with AI can be fixed with very careful scripting. He was using what he built with Microsoft and two of the commercially available AI packages to do what he always wanted to do since he was little - make movies.
From the way he described what he does, it is more akin to writing than coding... But with a really good small team you could do the work of a hundred industry executives, for about 1/10th or less of the budget and slightly less time than it would take with humans doing everything.

 

[naosu]

Too many comments here to reply to everyone. Sorry. I wanted to reply to many of your comments here. There's just so many. While I'm not the poster of this thread I feel similar to what many of you said.

When I write, its because its FUN! I feel like I've got so much energy and enthusiasm to make a beautiful story that people will like. And its very sad, even tragic to me that people would do this for the wrong reasons. And they won't get away with it. You know you can tell that people will start to dislike AI written stories? This is true. You know how I know this?

There's already a pattern here. The pattern of Xianxia novels shows what will happen with AI stories. You've noticed that many people start to get very tired and dislike Xianxia novels. The reasoning is the same, doing it for the wrong reasons. And the people writing Xianxia stuff basically there were so many writers in Xianxia that basically wrote the main character as being a total predator, with no humanity, and preying off both allies and enemies alike, and not having any mercy with too many chapters and stories all basically being the same thing without hardly any variation. I could go into this a bit further. Xianxia suffers from the MC not being a hero as much as he is a Shark.

But this is why Xianxia patterns of people losing interest in them I believe will show the model of what will happen to AI written stories.

Also... there's too many nuances in a GOOD STORY to have AI put in all the things a person really wants to find. The hidden gems, the things that really appeal to people. When you write a story you are trying to put yourself into... like a 2nd life. That's why I think AI can't do that and they won't be able to capture the mindset of the reader. How can it, when its not a person itself... (It CAN try to do those things. It will look successful but then you'll feel the story isn't filling you up.)

Most of all.. writing stories is FUN! Why cheat yourself out of having fun!

 

[SurfAngel_1031]

Too many comments here to reply to everyone. Sorry. I wanted to reply to many of your comments here. There's just so many. While I'm not the poster of this thread I feel similar to what many of you said.

When I write, its because its FUN! I feel like I've got so much energy and enthusiasm to make a beautiful story that people will like. And its very sad, even tragic to me that people would do this for the wrong reasons. And they won't get away with it. You know you can tell that people will start to dislike AI written stories? This is true. You know how I know this?

There's already a pattern here. The pattern of Xianxia novels shows what will happen with AI stories. You've noticed that many people start to get very tired and dislike Xianxia novels. The reasoning is the same, doing it for the wrong reasons. And the people writing Xianxia stuff basically there were so many writers in Xianxia that basically wrote the main character as being a total predator, with no humanity, and preying off both allies and enemies alike, and not having any mercy with too many chapters and stories all basically being the same thing without hardly any variation. I could go into this a bit further. Xianxia suffers from the MC not being a hero as much as he is a Shark.

But this is why Xianxia patterns of people losing interest in them I believe will show the model of what will happen to AI written stories.

Also... there's too many nuances in a GOOD STORY to have AI put in all the things a person really wants to find. The hidden gems, the things that really appeal to people. When you write a story you are trying to put yourself into... like a 2nd life. That's why I think AI can't do that and they won't be able to capture the mindset of the reader. How can it, when its not a person itself... (It CAN try to do those things. It will look successful but then you'll feel the story isn't filling you up.)

Most of all.. writing stories is FUN! Why cheat yourself out of having fun!

Lovely reply.

You pointed out over of the things I didn't honestly think about, some when I write I come up with it in the moment. The hidden gem. A little detail that out of nowhere makes the story warmer. (Well I get a tingly feeling when I write it.) Most of the time since my books all take place within the same supernatural Earth, I'll toss in a little nugget that was in one of the other books.

You're right, I don't think I've ever seen AI catch and repeat something that intimate to both the author and reader.

After reading through the posts so far, I'm honestly glad I asked the question. The different outlooks gave me a better perspective, rather than my one way of thinking. What's more? The conversation thus far, has been civil and honestly fun. I can't wait to see what else folks come up with.

 

[Macha]

The conversation thus far, has been civil and honestly fun. I can't wait to see what else folks come up with.

Funny how the site only has one admin and everyone is doing their best to keep their discussion productive and civilized. Give praise for Tony has no equal.

 

[beast_regards]

Wouldn't that magic box actually be that AI program the person is using to give the prompt?

I've seen a similar reaction to Artists that have been dealing with AI art for a long time now. Many would probably fight over the concept of an AI artist.

Yes, except, no.

Do you know how so called "AI" work?

It's based on probability. The program does its math and assumes that input containing a certain string of letters is the other string of letters, resulting in reply, but it doesn't understand the meaning of those letters, or words, or context. You aren't conversing with the "AI", it doesn't know it exists, it doesn't know you exist, it just chews some input to create output.

This makes it highly incompetent to deliver the consistent short story and all attempts always result in the jumbled random mess after the few hundred words, because the program is not really artificially intelligent, and you, as the writer, need that intelligence, that conciousness, the would be "AI" lacks. You need to understand context and meaning, and they can't do it. That's why there are very few "AI generated" stories. It simply doesn't work: you need to be lucky, very lucky, if the AI maintains coherence for 500 words.

That is why "AI" performs better when generating images. While this also interferes with the artist's ability to express themselves, it's considerably easier now to coerce "AI" to produce the decent pictures, since we employ the distinct part of brain when we interpret visuals as opposed when we interpret text, and the "AI" doesn't have to catch on some thread of conciousness every writer have, but the "AI" lacks. It only needs to count the probability of pixels being next to each other, and it is easier. It's not perfect, it is recognizable, but the overall result is better in a picture than in text, and even then, consistency is a problem.

This consistency, this necessity for some overarching plot, to author's stream of thought, makes "AI" writing impossible.

That's why it is used to translate unknown works. It could replace words from another in the foreign language, but someone else, human writer you don't know, because that human writer gave that story that context and meaning. Even a terrible writer is better at keeping coherence than AI.

 

[RainingFish]

Yes, except, no.

Do you know how so called "AI" work?

It's based on probability. The program does its math and assumes that input containing a certain string of letters is the other string of letters, resulting in reply, but it doesn't understand the meaning of those letters, or words, or context. You aren't conversing with the "AI", it doesn't know it exists, it doesn't know you exist, it just chews some input to create output.

This makes it highly incompetent to deliver the consistent short story and all attempts always result in the jumbled random mess after the few hundred words, because the program is not really artificially intelligent, and you, as the writer, need that intelligence, that conciousness, the would be "AI" lacks. You need to understand context and meaning, and they can't do it. That's why there are very few "AI generated" stories. It simply doesn't work: you need to be lucky, very lucky, if the AI maintains coherence for 500 words.

That is why "AI" performs better when generating images. While this also interferes with the artist's ability to express themselves, it's considerably easier now to coerce "AI" to produce the decent pictures, since we employ the distinct part of brain when we interpret visuals as opposed when we interpret text, and the "AI" doesn't have to catch on some thread of conciousness every writer have, but the "AI" lacks. It only needs to count the probability of pixels being next to each other, and it is easier. It's not perfect, it is recognizable, but the overall result is better in a picture than in text, and even then, consistency is a problem.

This consistency, this necessity for some overarching plot, to author's stream of thought, makes "AI" writing impossible.

That's why it is used to translate unknown works. It could replace words from another in the foreign language, but someone else, human writer you don't know, because that human writer gave that story that context and meaning. Even a terrible writer is better at keeping coherence than AI.

There is still a lot we don't know about in inner working of AI.

Spoiler: Video about how AI works.

 

[beast_regards]

There is still a lot we don't know about in inner working of AI.

Yeah, no, I am not trusting a journalist for that.

How many years in prison journalist faces for lying?

None.

This entire "witch hunt" was started by the journalist, claiming that AI copies the images, i.e. the image you got is 1:1 the same as the "AI" has in its database.

Thus, making the "AI" copyright problem, and all artists jumped on this.

It was a lie.

The image was the input, and the output was purposefully set to be the same as the input, to create outrage artificially.

The "AI" pictures are not copyrighted, because the product of the AI is always sufficiently transformed (and not always to the better) and is essentially a collage made by "monkey's hand" (i.e. not a conscious action)

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Yes, except, no.

Do you know how so called "AI" work?

It's based on probability. The program does its math and assumes that input containing a certain string of letters is the other string of letters, resulting in reply, but it doesn't understand the meaning of those letters, or words, or context. You aren't conversing with the "AI", it doesn't know it exists, it doesn't know you exist, it just chews some input to create output.

That makes it sound like you're talking to a child - which is kind of appropriate, given that it IS a Language Learning Module IIRC.
But the Learning part means it MIGHT grow up - or at least "learn" how to FAKE growing up, given enough time...

(Then again, an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters ... seem to be producing Star Wars and Marvel content for Disney these days so, who knows?)

 

[Alfir]

Once upon a time, I don't use AI. In fact, I loathe it. I write a lot. I never get to finish a book, because of the lack of readers, and readers are a big part of a story. I believe I have good stories, but it's tough expressing an idea that's being hindered by the language barrier. Yes, I can study. I study. But translating a thought you have in your local tongue to popular media isn't easy. Writing is tough. I learned that the hard way. However, I have ideas, lots of them. I want these ideas in letters, words, and paragraphs. I enjoy writing them and actualizing them.

But no one bothers reading 'em, half the time, I'd get hate comments for my grammar, choice of words, my forgotten facts and tidbits, sometimes get called a goldfish for it. And then one day, I used AI, of course not to generate a story, because that wouldn't be my idea and it defeats my purpose of 'aspiring' to be an author. Guess what, it's the first story that had a wide breakthrough in readership I was able to earn money for real enough to buy my way out of college.

So yes, I will come off as arguably biased, but it helped me break out of my shell. This is definitely an unpopular opinion but as a tool, AI helps a great deal to shorten the time required for writing a story that it allows me to write more. Because fact is, I want to write more. I have so much ideas I want them written if not for just my amusement, but also for the amusement of others. In the end, the money essentially comes as second if it is a passion... but if you are just another hustler taking advantage of AI for a quick buck, I hate you. And I don't want to hate myself.

 

[beast_regards]

That makes it sound like you're talking to a child - which is kind of appropriate, given that it IS a Language Learning Module IIRC.
But the Learning part means it MIGHT grow up - or at least "learn" how to FAKE growing up, given enough time...

(Then again, an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters ... seem to be producing Star Wars and Marvel content for Disney these days so, who knows?)

The saying about an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, strangely, do apply to the "AI" generated stories, it is relatively close to how it works, but you need to consider probability.

If there is an infinite number of monkeys (with typewriters), what is the probability that you would pick the one that would inevitably write Shakespeare's Sonet?

Infinitely small.

 

[HamzaNilufer]

Some people aren’t writers, they’re directors.

A narrative director in a game or a movie director doesn’t personally write every line or scene, but they’re still crucial to shaping a coherent story. Their job is to guide the emotional arc, the themes, the tone. They have to trust the specialists to help realise their vision.

Writing with AI, for some, works the same way. They're acting like directors.

Sure, some directors are also writers. They create key scenes, style guides, casting scripts. Others just focus on the feeling they want to convey and trust their team to bring it to life.

Think about the movie Gladiator. You probably think of Russell Crowe, or Ridley Scott. But how many people think of John Logan or William Nicholson, the two co-writers / screenwriters with David Franzoni?

I don't think people using AI really feel like writers. I think they are trying to be the director.

Which makes sense, because the industry sensationalise that role, and obfuscate the authors.

You're totally and absolutely wrong, the most civil way to express my irration. They're just lazy. I know a couple of them. Just don't try justifying them. It irritates us true writers who work hard on every single piece of the book. And even if what you say is true, then you're telling us to just forget writing and just direct.

Once upon a time, I don't use AI. In fact, I loathe it. I write a lot. I never get to finish a book, because of the lack of readers, and readers are a big part of a story. I believe I have good stories, but it's tough expressing an idea that's being hindered by the language barrier. Yes, I can study. I study. But translating a thought you have in your local tongue to popular media isn't easy. Writing is tough. I learned that the hard way. However, I have ideas, lots of them. I want these ideas in letters, words, and paragraphs. I enjoy writing them and actualizing them.

But no one bothers reading 'em, half the time, I'd get hate comments for my grammar, choice of words, my forgotten facts and tidbits, sometimes get called a goldfish for it. And then one day, I used AI, of course not to generate a story, because that wouldn't be my idea and it defeats my purpose of 'aspiring' to be an author. Guess what, it's the first story that had a wide breakthrough in readership I was able to earn money for real enough to buy my way out of college.

So yes, I will come off as arguably biased, but it helped me break out of my shell. This is definitely an unpopular opinion but as a tool, AI helps a great deal to shorten the time required for writing a story that it allows me to write more. Because fact is, I want to write more. I have so much ideas I want them written if not for just my amusement, but also for the amusement of others. In the end, the money essentially comes as second if it is a passion... but if you are just another hustler taking advantage of AI for a quick buck, I hate you. And I don't want to hate myself.

You're seriously trying to piss me off. You're right, AI helps a lot of people make "money" that they don't deserve because of AI. It's because of these people like you that people like us, who can write, direct and do everything, don't get recognised, due to the over dilution caused by AI authors. But let me tell you one thing, every single writer has stories they can't write, but that's just the thing, you have to learn to find the one readers will come to. For example, Veronica Roth, in her acknowledgements she thanks a person for selecting divergent out of hordes of her manuscripts. Don't think people like us are trying to push you down and are jealous of you(though I doubt anybody's that stupid). It's just that we don't like it when our skill is downtrodden by AI-generated stories.
Of course, the money got you out of college. But there are millions of tons of ways to earn money, just don't ruin another person's passion in the process.
Best regards,
Hamza Nilufer.

Yes, except, no.

Do you know how so called "AI" work?

It's based on probability. The program does its math and assumes that input containing a certain string of letters is the other string of letters, resulting in reply, but it doesn't understand the meaning of those letters, or words, or context. You aren't conversing with the "AI", it doesn't know it exists, it doesn't know you exist, it just chews some input to create output.

This makes it highly incompetent to deliver the consistent short story and all attempts always result in the jumbled random mess after the few hundred words, because the program is not really artificially intelligent, and you, as the writer, need that intelligence, that conciousness, the would be "AI" lacks. You need to understand context and meaning, and they can't do it. That's why there are very few "AI generated" stories. It simply doesn't work: you need to be lucky, very lucky, if the AI maintains coherence for 500 words.

That is why "AI" performs better when generating images. While this also interferes with the artist's ability to express themselves, it's considerably easier now to coerce "AI" to produce the decent pictures, since we employ the distinct part of brain when we interpret visuals as opposed when we interpret text, and the "AI" doesn't have to catch on some thread of conciousness every writer have, but the "AI" lacks. It only needs to count the probability of pixels being next to each other, and it is easier. It's not perfect, it is recognizable, but the overall result is better in a picture than in text, and even then, consistency is a problem.

This consistency, this necessity for some overarching plot, to author's stream of thought, makes "AI" writing impossible.

That's why it is used to translate unknown works. It could replace words from another in the foreign language, but someone else, human writer you don't know, because that human writer gave that story that context and meaning. Even a terrible writer is better at keeping coherence than AI.

Point. You must be a technical guy. What's your view on AI authors

 

[Clo]

And even if what you say is true, then you're telling us to just forget writing and just direct.

I didn't suggest or say that. Some people are writers and will keep writing.

What you'll see is some people who used to write because they had to will no longer write, because they don't have to.

What you'll also see is people who know how to write, and will learn how to use AI as a tool to accelerate or improve their craft.

Digital art, digital music, 3d render and animation, commercial game engines—we saw this pattern so many times before.

We're in a pretty awkward phase where the technology is in its infancy and still easy(ish) to spot. I'm confident it's not going to stop improving and being used.

For good or ill.

 

[HamzaNilufer]

I didn't suggest or say that. Some people are writers and will keep writing.

What you'll see is some people who used to write because they had to will no longer write, because they don't have to.

What you'll also see is people who know how to write, and will learn how to use AI as a tool to accelerate or improve their craft.

Digital art, digital music, 3d render and animation, commercial game engines—we saw this pattern so many times before.

We're in a pretty awkward phase where the technology is in its infancy and still easy(ish) to spot. I'm confident it's not going to stop improving and being used.

For good or ill.

If you're focus is on writing, AI images and advice are okay, but writing the whole book, or scenes, that is unacceptable.
Look, I know you're trying to make using AI look modern, but here's the thing, writing is not modern, it's ancient, it's one of the most prestigious jobs that have been passed on from the ages. And to humiliate it by using AI and downtrod the creative and philosophical insights of true humans, is totally and utterly unacceptable. Why don't you try writing and see how hard it is. Then all yourself, "If I wrote something through so much hardship, only to be downtrod by a story which was made with no hardship at all, how would I feel? How crushing would it be? How angry will I be? How hurt? How angry? How frustrated?"
You say you've tried it. You accept that you can't do it. I respect that. So, now you can do two things without breaking the rights of others, either leave and stop writing, or try to improve, you can ask AI help, but after training, the book must be yours.
Why don't you try doing my suggestion and see how satisfactory it'd feel to write a book through all those experiences. No matter whether it's a bestseller or a flop
You've completed it, by yourself, congratulate your self, not everybody has done it.
Now, why don't you keep all these in mind and write a book of yours, however small it is. My first was only 14000, easy target. After that, if you want, you can reach out to me, I will be your first reader, follower, viewer and fan. And all the controversies between us would be finish.
Before doing all that, just feel the guilt of ruining the person who would have gotten the money which you got through AI, the person who wrote it honourably l. Then start writing your book.

 

[Clo]

writing the whole book, or scenes, that is unacceptable.

If people ask ChatGPT "Write a book" or "Write chapter about X" and copy-paste this into their books, people will quickly realise they can skip the middle-man and ask ChatGPT to tell them a story directly.

For any book to have value, people will have to add some human oversight to the output.

It's going to be a hot topic for a long time just where the land in the sand is for "but how much help/advice is the maximum you're alllowed to keep"

The readers are ultimately going to be the real arbiters of this rule. Not the lawmakers.

 

[HamzaNilufer]

I didn't suggest or say that. Some people are writers and will keep writing.

What you'll see is some people who used to write because they had to will no longer write, because they don't have to.

What you'll also see is people who know how to write, and will learn how to use AI as a tool to accelerate or improve their craft.

Digital art, digital music, 3d render and animation, commercial game engines—we saw this pattern so many times before.

We're in a pretty awkward phase where the technology is in its infancy and still easy(ish) to spot. I'm confident it's not going to stop improving and being used.

For good or ill.

P.S you make it look like you don't care about it's I'll effects and vouch for the AI, not the person using it

I didn't suggest or say that. Some people are writers and will keep writing.

What you'll see is some people who used to write because they had to will no longer write, because they don't have to.

What you'll also see is people who know how to write, and will learn how to use AI as a tool to accelerate or improve their craft.

Digital art, digital music, 3d render and animation, commercial game engines—we saw this pattern so many times before.

We're in a pretty awkward phase where the technology is in its infancy and still easy(ish) to spot. I'm confident it's not going to stop improving and being used

If people ask ChatGPT "Write a book" or "Write chapter about X" and copy-paste this into their books, people will quickly realise they can skip the middle-man and ask ChatGPT to tell them a story directly.

For any book to have value, people will have to add some human oversight to the output.

It's going to be a hot topic for a long time just where the land in the sand is for "but how much help/advice is the maximum you're alllowed to keep"

The readers are ultimately going to be the real arbiters of this rule. Not the lawmakers.

In the end, you still don't accept that you're ruining another honourable person's chance at the big screens
You don't even feel the guilt, not the implications. All you care about is the money.
I thought you at least felt like an author, but alas, you're just a moneymaker. All you care about is making the money. Not the world hearing your voice, not the love and passion for writing.
You're wrong, how much is to far depends on morality, the person must ask themselves, if I pass this border, will it be biased to other writers. Everybody has that morality. The part of you that gave the above message is the moneymaker, not the humane, moral one. Why don't you try asking your heart, not your brain.
You gonna justify yourself, or gonna repent and start over or leave the writers to themselves for goodness sake without destroying their voices. The day you feel guilty, contact me, I'll forgive you and help you in writing. This is no lie, all I want is honourable writers, more haters. And I also don't want honourable writers losing their honour and morality.
Best regards,
Hamza Nilufer.

If people ask ChatGPT "Write a book" or "Write chapter about X" and copy-paste this into their books, people will quickly realise they can skip the middle-man and ask ChatGPT to tell them a story directly.

For any book to have value, people will have to add some human oversight to the output.

It's going to be a hot topic for a long time just where the land in the sand is for "but how much help/advice is the maximum you're alllowed to keep"

The readers are ultimately going to be the real arbiters of this rule. Not the lawmakers.

But the way, chatgpt can't make a chapter as good as a writer, even if it's diction is good, it's style and characterisation is crap. I've asked it till unique famous authors to try to study them. It's worthless. In the end, the readers will somehow come to the writers. But imagine their disappointment when they see the same crap in these platforms and books too. And if your interest is in the readers, then don't ruin their entertainment through your fakes please, I am a notorious reader, as well as writer, so I speak for both sides.
Please take this into consideration.

Best regards,
Hamza Nilufer.

 

[Clo]

you make it look like you don't care about it's ill effects

I am just a hobbyist writer with a few hundred readers. Writing has cost me money, and earned me nothing.

AI doesn't fiscally impact me in this area.

But I am a programmer and a game developper, and people in my industry are losing their jobs thanks to AI.

Translators, artists, editors, authors, musicians—do many people are losing their jobs because of AI. Programmers, the very people who made LLMs, are getting replaced by it.

It's not that I endorse it. It's that it's happening, and me complaining about that won't change the tide.

 

[SurfAngel_1031]

I'm personally struggling with the concept of using AI to develop 'your' book. If it's yours, then should 'you' bring the concept to life?

Using AI to write said book takes away the human element, which isn't that the whole point of developing characters, the plot and writing in the first place?

I can't pretend to understand why someone would do it, hence I asked the question in the first place.

What's worse is taking credit for something you didn't actually write. "Look at my chapter, see what you think!!!"
Well, if AI did it then it's not really 'yours'.

It's making my head spin, lol.

Please keep the comments coming but be nice to one another :)

 

[Madmcgee]

I'm personally struggling with the concept of using AI to develop 'your' book. If it's yours, then should 'you' bring the concept to life?

Using AI to write said book takes away the human element, which isn't that the whole point of developing characters, the plot and writing in the first place?

I can't pretend to understand why someone would do it, hence I asked the question in the first place.

What's worse is taking credit for something you didn't actually write. "Look at my chapter, see what you think!!!"
Well, if AI did it then it's not really 'yours'.

It's making my head spin, lol.

Please keep the comments coming but be nice to one another :)

It's a very weird spot for sure.
Like, if I see AI 'art' I find myself already dissociating it from artwork, and more looking at it like a photograph, if that makes sense? When I've played with AI, I don't consider what I'm making with it 'art'

Granted, I don't use AI to write any more than Google Docs and its correction software, Grammarly back when I was trying to retrain my monkey ass to forget years and years of slang and poor grammar, but, at what point is the line drawn?

If everyone starts to crusade against work, be it writing or pictures or anything else, that's simply touched by the dreaded learning robits, then pretty soon we'll all be back to the days of writing on paper with ink.

(my worst nightmare, I'm a leftie and I smudge like crazy...)

 

[SurfAngel_1031]

If everyone starts to crusade against work, be it writing or pictures or anything else, that's simply touched by the dreaded learning robits, then pretty soon we'll all be back to the days of writing on paper with ink.

(my worst nightmare, I'm a leftie and I smudge like crazy...)

There are still typewriters. ?
I feel your pain on being a lefty though. I curl my hand and everything. Used the left handed notebooks, the whole messy business. No matter what, there's smears and ink all over your hand.