AI assisted, a vague term on purpose.

[Blingbee]

I suppose one distinction that could be developed is that there is an objectively correct way to spell something (by convention). It makes more sense to delegate that out to a minion. Art and creativity isn't about adherence to a rule, but about expressing yourself.

So once you start delegating away the opportunities to express your own individuality, the thousand little distinctions in scene choice, rythmn and metaphor that make the piece 'yours', then what you are doing is bartering away your opportunity to express yourself artistically

Just curious. But how is this different from authors using editors and proofreaders to change their writing?

Using editors is a normal part of publishing. The editors have a huge say in what works/does not and change the original writing a lot. In fact, many authors change their tone, their language etc completely based on an editor's feedback (or the editors do it themselves). This is an accepted norm in the publishing industry for centuries. How is this different? In the example I've given, the author often loses out to an editor (in terms of what needs to be written). So how is ok for creativity and expression to be moderated in this case?

 

[Akkizakura]

Just curious. But how is this different from authors using editors and proofreaders to change their writing?

Using editors is a normal part of publishing. The editors have a huge say in what works/does not and change the original writing a lot. In fact, many authors change their tone, their language etc completely based on an editor's feedback (or the editors do it themselves). This is an accepted norm in the publishing industry for centuries. How is this different? In the example I've given, the author often loses out to an editor (in terms of what needs to be written). So how is ok for creativity and expression to be moderated in this case?

Of course it's different because the editors and proofreaders are human. We are talking about AI-assistance here.

 

[unlaumy]

Just curious. But how is this different from authors using editors and proofreaders to change their writing?

Using editors is a normal part of publishing. The editors have a huge say in what works/does not and change the original writing a lot. In fact, many authors change their tone, their language etc completely based on an editor's feedback (or the editors do it themselves). This is an accepted norm in the publishing industry for centuries. How is this different? In the example I've given, the author often loses out to an editor (in terms of what needs to be written). So how is ok for creativity and expression to be moderated in this case?

Not much. As for how genAI will develop, it can be a discussion for the other day. But the differences between human editors and AI editors are like professional editors and middle-school students who kinda edit. There are degrees to competence (and clout) to it. As of now, the general sentiments on genAI on editing are still poor. There's also the fact that there are more people who use it to generate slop stories instead of just using it as helping tools.

 

[L1aei]

Of course it's different because the editors and proofreaders are human. We are talking about AI-assistance here.

That gave me mental whiplash.

 

[Blingbee]

Of course it's different because the editors and proofreaders are human. We are talking about AI-assistance here.

The outcome is the same. Content originally written can get changed. How does it matter if it's a human doing this or not? That flies against everything that people claim AI does. Changing content whether by a human or an algorithm is irrelevant. A good editor and proofreader can take an average piece of human slop to a great one. In fact, most good authors seem to be that way in a large part due to their editors. Not because of raw talent alone. In fact, most stories get pruned, redirected (changing the storyline itself) and redone by editors and proofreaders.

I'll reiterate what I said on the previous page. As a reader, I could care less if a human or AI edited a piece of work. If it reads well, I am happy. Human slop/AI slop is indistinguishable to me. At least I find that AI slop will have proper punctuation and spelling and grammar, unlike human slop.

Not much. As for how genAI will develop, it can be a discussion for the other day. But the differences between human editors and AI editors are like professional editors and middle-school students who kinda edit. There are degrees to competence (and clout) to it. As of now, the general sentiments on genAI on editing are still poor. There's also the fact that there are more people who use it to generate slop stories instead of just using it as helping tools.

Then the results would speak for themselves. If AI is so poor, the work will be poor and the readers will shun the work. Why do people worry so much then?

Poor work will ultimately get ignored. Correct?

 

[unlaumy]

I'll reiterate what I said on the previous page. As a reader, I could care less if a human or AI edited a piece of work. If it reads well, I am happy. Human slop/AI slop is indistinguishable to me. At least I find that AI slop will have proper punctuation and spelling and grammar, unlike human slop.

Then the results would speak for themselves. If AI is so poor, the work will be poor and the readers will shun the work. Why do people worry so much then?

I'm not really worried, just annoyed that they keep showing up. There's also something wrong in your conclusion. Humans writing human slops still gather readers, I don't believe anything will change on AI slops. There'll always be readers for slop stories. There are hopes even for AI stories, even if they're bad.

Poor work will ultimately get ignored. Correct?

They're annoying, they keep showing up, and I want to ignore them, but they keep showing up.

 

[L1aei]

Then the results would speak for themselves. If AI is so poor, the work will be poor and the readers will shun the work. Why do people worry so much then?

Poor work will ultimately get ignored. Correct?

From the perspective of a reader, I fully agree. You're here for the entertainment value. Like, you're a reader, and readers don't care how the sausage is made. You just want to eat it.

The delivery method doesn't matter to you, and it never has. I'm cool with that.

And I also agree that editors and proofreaders, even producers, can, and often do, tear original works a new asshole... at least until they are suitable to their tastes. I've experienced it plenty of times with my own content. Sometimes I even liked what came out the other end. But at that point, it wasn't solely my shit anymore.

Where I draw the line is simple. Using AI to write everything and claiming the result as personal authorship is fraud. You can't change my mind about that. Also, it isn't expression. Somebody ever comes to you and says the AI wrote it, but it represents their passion... like, WTF? That is no different than ordering takeout and bragging you cooked the meal.

 

[Blingbee]

I'm not really worried, just annoyed that they keep showing up. There's also something wrong in your conclusion. Humans writing human slops still gather readers, I don't believe anything will change on AI slops. There'll always be readers for slop stories. There are hopes even for AI stories, even if they're bad.



They're annoying, they keep showing up, and I want to ignore them, but they keep showing up.

So if humans writing slop still gather readers, you shouldn't be worried at all. People using AI will have fewer and have no motivation to continue. New AI slop will stop showing up soon.

AI slop would have the fewest readers, fewest upvotes etc. so they should be easy to filter out.

So what's the issue?

 

[Leti]

So if humans writing slop still gather readers, you shouldn't be worried at all. People using AI will have fewer and have no motivation to continue. New AI slop will stop showing up soon.

AI slop would have the fewest readers, fewest upvotes etc. so they should be easy to filter out.

So what's the issue?

There will be a point where you stop noticing AI slop because it have evolved to be unmistakable from humans slop.

 

[Blingbee]

From the perspective of a reader, I fully agree. You're here for the entertainment value. Like, you're a reader, and readers don't care how the sausage is made. You just want to eat it.

The delivery method doesn't matter to you, and it never has. I'm cool with that.

And I also agree that editors and proofreaders, even producers, can, and often do, tear original works a new asshole... at least until they are suitable to their tastes. I've experienced it plenty of times with my own content. Sometimes I even liked what came out the other end. But at that point, it wasn't solely my shit anymore.

Where I draw the line is simple. Using AI to write everything and claiming the result as personal authorship is fraud. You can't change my mind about that. Also, it isn't expression. Somebody ever comes to you and says the AI wrote it, but it represents their passion... like, WTF? That is no different than ordering takeout and bragging you cooked the meal.

I believe the topic at hand is AI assisted and not AI generated? That is your line and I respect that. I am just sick of authors and writers acting like hypocrites about some authors using AI assistance and labelling everything that they do as slop even if they use the AI for editing - just as other do humans for the same.

That said, how is it ok for human editors, proofreaders to completely change storylines. You said the below

But at that point, it wasn't solely my shit anymore.

That means the story wasn't yours either. So you didn't create anything original.

There will be a point where you stop noticing AI slop because it have evolved to be unmistakable from humans slop.

That's not the claim made.

Everyone anti-AI says that AI is noticeably poor and useless compared to humans. One person above even said that human slop is superior and will still gather readers. That means there is a difference and people can differentiate between the two.

 

[L1aei]

That means the story wasn't yours either. So you didn't create anything original.

Dude... take a peak at the series I published. None of what I wrote is original; it's fanfiction.

 

[Blingbee]

Dude... take a peak at the series I published. None of what I wrote is original; it's fanfiction.

Lol

Sorry for being so intense. I'm just sick of reading this Anti-AI stuff all over the net.

 

[Leti]

Everyone anti-AI says that AI is noticeably poor and useless compared to humans. One person above even said that human slop is superior and will still gather readers. That means there is a difference and people can differentiate between the two.

For now.

 

[Alski]

Poor work will ultimately get ignored. Correct?

Less views, sure. It wont get ignored because there are still groups of people out there who read it because they don't understand why its bad.

1. People who have a poor grasp of english because its their second (or more) language.
2. Brain addled teenagers and young adults who have grown up on social media.
3. People reading it from a translation program and attributing the poor writing to poor translation instead.

 

[unlaumy]

So if humans writing slop still gather readers, you shouldn't be worried at all. People using AI will have fewer and have no motivation to continue. New AI slop will stop showing up soon.

AI slop would have the fewest readers, fewest upvotes etc. so they should be easy to filter out.

Can't you read? There are hopes for AI stories, even if they're bad. As of now, AI slops can't reach the rate of human slops popularity simply because of the bad sentiments on genAI. Who knows how it will go in the future? Maybe we'll have enough of AI slop enjoyers to enjoy AI slops together.

So what's the issue?

Not much, just like I said before. The topic is about AI-assisted stories. GenAI on editing is considered bad because most people consider it bad. I'm sure some people will enjoy the fact that there are readers who don't mind GenAI, but that's that.

Everyone anti-AI says that AI is noticeably poor and useless compared to humans. One person above even said that human slop is superior and will still gather readers. That means there is a difference and people can differentiate between the two.

Oh, I'll clarify: human slops and AI slops are slops. Please read.

There will be a point where you stop noticing AI slop because it have evolved to be unmistakable from humans slop.

I'm sure the guy has said they're indistinguishable already.

Human slop/AI slop is indistinguishable to me.

 

[L1aei]

So if humans writing slop still gather readers, you shouldn't be worried at all. People using AI will have fewer and have no motivation to continue. New AI slop will stop showing up soon.

AI slop would have the fewest readers, fewest upvotes etc. so they should be easy to filter out.

So what's the issue?

I'm sorry to bring this back up and not moving on, but this one... I'm having difficulty understanding your response to laum-hy. See, when I read laum-hy's comment, I understood it as they don't think AI will prevail, that they just hate tripping over it constantly. Your response... uh... I think you misunderstood laum-hy.

 

[unlaumy]

I'm sorry to bring this back up and not moving on, but this one... I'm having difficulty understanding your response to laum-hy. See, when I read laum-hy's comment, I understood it as they don't think AI will prevail, that they just hate tripping over it constantly. Your response... uh... I think you misunderstood laum-hy.

Yup. I won't mind if they ask me about why genAI is considered bad at all (well, it isn't that much of a secret). I'll even throw in some theories on how this kind of sentiment can be culled down from all the haters (maybe even me?). It's just too bad they're hell-bent on defending AI.

 

[L1aei]

Yup. I won't mind if they ask me about why genAI is considered bad at all (well, it isn't that much of a secret). I'll even throw in some theories on how this kind of sentiment can be culled down from all the haters (maybe even me?). It's just too bad they're hell-bent on defending AI.

Yeah, I'll be transparent here: I'm not defending AI in general. I'm defending responsible use of it; AI is a tool. Anyone who misuses it totally deserves criticism, not a damn lick of exposure or cover.

 

[Blingbee]

Less views, sure. It wont get ignored because there are still groups of people out there who read it because they don't understand why its bad.

1. People who have a poor grasp of english because its their second (or more) language.
2. Brain addled teenagers and young adults who have grown up on social media.
3. People reading it from a translation program and attributing the poor writing to poor translation instead.

You seem to have very little respect for readers. Perhaps they are smarter than you give them credit for. People read what they like. Not what they're supposed to like according to a few.

Can't you read? There are hopes for AI stories, even if they're bad. As of now, AI slops can't reach the rate of human slops popularity simply because of the bad sentiments on genAI. Who knows how it will go in the future? Maybe we'll have enough of AI slop enjoyers to enjoy AI slops together.


Not much, just like I said before. The topic is about AI-assisted stories. GenAI on editing is considered bad because most people consider it bad. I'm sure some people will enjoy the fact that there are readers who don't mind GenAI, but that's that.


Oh, I'll clarify: human slops and AI slops are slops. Please read.


I'm sure the guy has said they're indistinguishable already.

I guess I can't read as well as you do. You win.

Yup. I won't mind if they ask me about why genAI is considered bad at all (well, it isn't that much of a secret). I'll even throw in some theories on how this kind of sentiment can be culled down from all the haters (maybe even me?). It's just too bad they're hell-bent on defending AI.

Last time I'll repeat my original statement. I read what I like. I don't care if it's AI or not. I could care less about whether it was AI assisted (or even generated). If content is poor, it doesn't matter. Ditto for good content. People can either get with the times or go the way of dinosaurs.

 

[Alski]

You seem to have very little respect for readers. Perhaps they are smarter than you give them credit for. People read what they like. Not what they're supposed to like according to a few.

I'm not a writer, i don't care what people read. I'm just telling you why objectively bad writing still gets views.