AI opinion

[Racosharko]

it makes you a reader

I think that is a very succinct way to put it.

 

[beast_regards]

Use whichever tool you want.

We live in times where everything is called "AI".

When everything is "AI", well, then nothing is ...

The "AI" doesn't mean anything. It used to, but since it was used all the time and out of context by the ignorant marketing departments trying to get atop of the next sale craze, the word (or rather acronym) lost its meaning. You could replace it with "Banana Inserter" and no meaning is lost, it would sound the equally nonsensical. Do you "use banana inserter in writing" sounds at least little more amusing, until it too become a buzz word and has to be replaced with "tomato annihilator"

Currently, all the steps to make your very post here on the Scribble Hub are called AI. Your notebook, or computer, or phone, is called to have AI features (even if there aren't any). Android has "AI" features (even if there aren't any), as does Win 11. As does Google Chrome, or Microsoft Edge, or even Firefox. Any word processor has "AI" or is "AI" (even if there aren't any), be it Grammarly, or Pro Writing Aid, or Ms Word, and so on.

If you could see the message, you used "AI" by the current logic of things.

If you mean use of ChatGPT (which isn't even AI) ...

...well, why not?

It would vomit the random assortment of words which couldn't be posted as it is anyway.

Well, you could post it as "look what so called AI spat out" but that's it.

The AI generated text is simply mostly useless. (unless you try to imitate brain dead HR dept corporate speech)

The AI generated artwork works better because well, it speaks to the parts of our brain that are easier fooled.

 

[JayMark]

I just want to say: In Japanese AI means love.

 

[Racosharko]

AI means

Means yes in Scotland.

 

[beast_regards]

I just want to say: In Japanese AI means love.

Excellent. I admit, it would make the sentence to look a little more positive.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Our politicians are suddenly big fans of Artificial Intelligence. Probably because most of them ARE artificial and have no clue what intelligence is...

 

[CrimsonGenius]

The problem is AI went from assist to replace you. Sooner or later AI will ask for money and try to replace the CEO’s. What now son?

 

[Tyranomaster]

I'd like to elucidate my opinion because I think I might have made my statement a bit to general for something that deserves a bit more nuance.

Large Language Model AI should not be doing the core aspect of what you are trying to do, whatever that may be. Don't use it to replace yourself, use it to assist yourself, just like any other tool. If you aim to write a story, then ensure that you are the one doing the writing of the story, do not let the LLM write the story for you. You can farm dozens of tasks out to it, but you need to be the story's source.

There are times when maybe you do want an LLM to write for you. For example: writing an assembly manual for an object you designed. If your goal, what you want from your project, is to make and sell x-object, but you know you have a hard time explaining things to others, then it can function as a basic writer.

In essence LLM models, having been trained on massive quantities of data that has been sanitized, produce above average work. Like "good enough" work. If it isn't the main portion of what you are trying to do, then it is able to be value added.

As of right now, however, the things they produce are not standout, and I would wager that with current methods they'll never be better than the pinnacle of human achievment. That would require a radical change in training methods. Many apex examples of human thinking and achievement are practically contradictory among examples of achievment. (Take Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, that each highly accurately describe two portions of reality, but fundamentally contradict each other at their base level of how they're formulated.)

I've rambled for a while, so I'll bring it back in to explain why you shouldn't let the LLM do the thing you want to do. It will come off as rude initially, but there is a harsh kernal of truth in there:

If you use an LLM (AI) to write for you because you feel you yourself are inadequate at accomplishing the task, then someone is more skilled than yourself who also utilizes AI, but as a more effective assistant, will forever outclass you, and you yourself will not build the skill to reach their level.

We are in a brief transitory period where the skilled artists aren't utilizing AI yet, and are having certain jobs taken from them. Some will adapt, and soon will outclass those who tried to use a tool as a standin for their skill.

As an example, while many basic level seamstresses lost their way of life during the industrial revolution, modern fabric and clothing is still designed by industry professionals who merely utilize industrial manufacturing as a tool, rather than replacement, of their skill. This allows products impossible before it was introduced.

In conclusion, integrate llm's into your workflow, just like you use a word processor and keyboard. I storyboard with AI assistance and frequently bounce ideas off it. I ask it for potential ideas (and they're usually shit). It does a decent job of being a sounding board and believability/sanity check. That's where it shines, as a slightly above average feedback machine that you can always ask more details from.

 

[sbdrag]

I am personally against the use of generative AI (to be specific) use at all because of the significant harm it does to the environment compared to other computer processes and the unethical training methods used to train the vast majority of LLMs available. As others have said before, if you set those aside, using AI to write for you will not help you improve as a writer and you will not reach the same level of creativity as someone not using AI to write the bulk of their story. (The reason it writes so much smut is likely from trawling fanfic sites for training, for the record.)

I also don't really recommend AI for research, either - ChatGPT only knows what it's been told, and is known to give entirely incorrect information on a topic it's supposedly trained on.

My opinion of AI grammar checkers like Grammarly or ProWriting Aid - which are not generative and do not cause the same amount of harm - is that they are more beneficial when you know grammar than when you don't. As others have said, they are not always correct - or, to be more specific, they have not been trained for creative writing, so will always try to redirect you to the most technically/mechanically correct option with little room for stylistic choices or more relaxed, casual speech. They are also sometimes entirely wrong because they are not a person and cannot actually read. So if you know grammar decently enough, they can be a great tool for finding things for you to look at - so you can make a choice with your own knowledge of grammar on whether or not the suggestion works for what you are trying to do in your work.

For example, when people speak, we often omit words - "Need to do that..." vs "I need to do that...". Grammarly will usually try to add those missing words, even if the meaning is clear without them and it makes more sense for the word to be omitted. Such as if this phrase was muttered under someone's breath as they were walking around a room looking for something and were reminded of a task while doing so.

If you don't know much grammar, finding some beta readers or hiring an editor is a better way to go because you can have a conversation about the changes they suggest. You can learn a lot of grammar from having a professional editor look over your work and asking them about the changes that don't make sense to you - and an editor should (within reason) be open to having that conversation so they can be sure their suggested edits make sense for your work. (Finding the best editor for your work is an entirely different conversation though, lol.)

 

[thepetalobox]

as good sir said if you leave what you should write to an AI you are a reader not an author, I use AI a lot to get ideas, names, understand some questions, it is easier to find synonyms, debate ideas, and most of the time it gives me a complete list and I don't use any but I get a better idea from what it gave me, look at the AI as your assistant nothing more, and it is there for something, it is stupid not to use all it can do. now if you don't have a lot of time writing then don't use AI grow up by yourself, because I know a cousin of mine who even thinks for himself has to go to chatgpt, he's a freak.

A journey of nothingness

In the kingdom of Montesis, a place where magic is forbidden, two travelers face an uncertain fate. A technician and repairman of 129 years loses his powers, becoming unable to protect himself or to think about how he will protect the people he loves. He disappoints his master and María,...

www.scribblehub.com

 

[Lysander_Works]

I know it's a hot take, but people are generally all in or all out. If I see an author who used AI for a cover, I feel kind of meh. If I see they used AI to write even a quarter of their book, I'm blacklisting their work from reading.
Do I feel bad saying that? No. No I don't.
I want to read something made from blood sweat and tears, and maybe a soul or two.

 

[Zadd]

So, I asked for fun the question to chat GPT haha, here is the answer:


Whether an author should use artificial intelligence depends entirely on their creative approach and personal ethics. I believe AI can be a powerful tool, but it should not replace the writer’s unique vision and voice.


Why should an author use AI?

AI can be useful at various stages of the creative process:


1. Idea generation and brainstorming


• Finding original concepts, narrative twists, or alternative storylines.

• Exploring unexpected angles to enrich a plot.


2. Structuring assistance


• Organizing ideas, creating detailed outlines, and building strong narrative arcs.

• Generating character sheets and detailed descriptions.


3. Style improvement and proofreading


• Rewording sentences, improving flow and readability.

• Detecting repetitions, inconsistencies, and grammatical errors.


4. Productivity and time-saving


• AI can help draft quick first versions that the author can then refine.

• Reducing writer’s block by offering dynamic suggestions.



How far should AI be used?


AI should not replace human creativity but rather complement it. If a writer simply copies and pastes an AI-generated text without adapting it, they lose their essence and artistic identity.


In my opinion, a good balance would be:


• Using AI as an assistant, not as the author.

• Maintaining control over the narrative, emotions, and tone, as these elements give a story its soul.

• Preserving authenticity: readers look for stories that resonate with them on a personal level.


Conclusion

Artificial intelligence can be a great asset for writers, as long as it remains a tool and not a substitute. A good author will know how to use AI to develop their ideas and optimize their writing while preserving their uniqueness and artistic voice.



—————


I kind of feal like it agreed with many things that have been said yet I’m sure many will disagree with it. ?

By the way I nor agree nor disagree with it, I Asked the question for the same reason I asked it here: I’m curious.

well then ✌?.

 

[Tyranomaster]

I know it's a hot take, but people are generally all in or all out. If I see an author who used AI for a cover, I feel kind of meh. If I see they used AI to write even a quarter of their book, I'm blacklisting their work from reading.
Do I feel bad saying that? No. No I don't.
I want to read something made from blood sweat and tears, and maybe a soul or two.

Everyone draws a line somewhere. The Amish, for example, still produce their own clothes through human labor.

I am not saying your line is wrong, just pointing out that everyone draws the line in different places, and we do well to remember just how wide the choice space actually is on acceptable use of technology.

To insert a practical take on AI covers for webnovels and swing back to my previous comment. Most authors just want to write. They also do not want to spend money on a cover. While 5 years ago, that was fine, the vast majority of readers now won't pick up a story without a cover, ai generated or not. It has become a bottom line of quality for most people. So while some people may consciously avoid it, just as the Amish choose to not use electricity, the rest of the public demands it. They too are conscientious objectors, not contributing to it's furtherance, but that comes with isolation.

Not that the opinion is necessarily wrong, just that it is a statement of fact of the situation.

Personally, I use AI artwork, though anything I put on sale will have commissioned work instead. I wish it wasn't necessary to have a cover at all, but it has become so to compete.

 

[Lysander_Works]

Everyone draws a line somewhere. The Amish, for example, still produce their own clothes through human labor.

I am not saying your line is wrong, just pointing out that everyone draws the line in different places, and we do well to remember just how wide the choice space actually is on acceptable use of technology.

To insert a practical take on AI covers for webnovels and swing back to my previous comment. Most authors just want to write. They also do not want to spend money on a cover. While 5 years ago, that was fine, the vast majority of readers now won't pick up a story without a cover, ai generated or not. It has become a bottom line of quality for most people. So while some people may consciously avoid it, just as the Amish choose to not use electricity, the rest of the public demands it. They too are conscientious objectors, not contributing to it's furtherance, but that comes with isolation.

Not that the opinion is necessarily wrong, just that it is a statement of fact of the situation.

Personally, I use AI artwork, though anything I put on sale will have commissioned work instead. I wish it wasn't necessary to have a cover at all, but it has become so to compete.

A sad truth. I personally don't require covers to be interested in something. I literally jump into a median-chapter and look at the diction and content for a while. Make up my mind based on that.

 

[AncestorDuck]

Why is everyone hating on Ai-chan? @Ai-chan statement?

 

[beast_regards]

Why is everyone hating on Ai-chan? @Ai-chan statement?

You just used Ai. Ai wouldn't like being used.

 

[AncestorDuck]

You just used Ai. Ai wouldn't like being used.

 

[Rezcore]

I use it for spell check and proofreading and to notate important points I need for other chapters. Otherwise it's all me baby

 

[MarekSusicky]

I also don't really recommend AI for research, either - ChatGPT only knows what it's been told, and is known to give entirely incorrect information on a topic it's supposedly trained on.

I know you mean well, but the function of chatGPT like deep research is very useful, doing the grunt work for you. You can go through the citations to double-check the information, if you want.


For example, I asked the AI this:

Please summarize me comments of user "sbdrag" on "scribblehub" forums, their stance on smut writing and their stance on AI.

And, uhm, it found what I was looking for, sort of. I will point one thing, it found this thread :)

sbdrag has voiced a clear opposition to using generative AI tools (like AI text generators) to produce fiction. They cite both ethical and creative reasons for this stance. On the ethical side, sbdrag is “personally against the use of generative AI…at all” due to the “significant harm it does to the environment” (likely referencing the high energy consumption of AI models) and the “unethical training methods” involved in scraping data

and then funnily enough:

sbdrag also warns against using AI like ChatGPT for research or factual information. They note that a chatbot “only knows what it’s been told” and is “known to give entirely incorrect information” on topics it’s supposedly trained in

 

[Racosharko]

funnily

Oh, do me!