Is using AI is wrong?

[Seaspecter]

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

 

[FieryLou]

AI takes away uniqueness. The writing styles of the majority of the current "gen" is sooo similair, as if written by the same author, and im not just talking about the ehm-dashes. AI is a tool, and only the minority knows how to use it right.

Wasnt this part of the charm having an own style?

 

[VanVeleca]

Using it to entirely generate a story? Bad.
Using it to help with grammar? Probably fine.

 

[DireBadger]

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

Thou shalt not make a machine as stupid as the normal human mind.
Oh, wait, too late. Most readers are barely more sentient than a sledgehammer.

AI takes away uniqueness. The writing styles of the majority of the current "gen" is sooo similair, as if written by the same author, and im not just talking about the ehm-dashes. AI is a tool, and only the minority knows how to use it right.

Wasnt this part of the charm having an own style?

There are ways around this, but mostly getting AI gen fiction to be any good is more work than writing the chapter yourself.

 

[Max02]

I have asked before, but as nobody replied, let me ask it again:

How can we know for sure that some stories posted in this site are not AI made?

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I have asked before, but as nobody replied, let me ask it again:

How can we know for sure that some stories posted in this site are not AI made?

Even though it is technically against the rules, there are a few. And some of them are audacious enough to seek help in the Reviews area. Those are the ones that usually get caught

 

[FieryLou]

I have asked before, but as nobody replied, let me ask it again:

How can we know for sure that some stories posted in this site are not AI made?

If someone uses AI in a way I dont see it, why should it be a problem?

 

[BlissyMKW]

On one hand, I'm of the belief that it heavily depends on how you're using it. If you're just slapping a prompt on and letting the AI do all the legwork while you reap the rewards, then yes, it's bad. But if you're just using it for something like spelling or grammer checking while having done the main work on your own, then it's just a tool to use.

However, on the other hand, I do not agree at all with the hyper purists, the types who act like if you so much as look at an AI or use one in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, your entire work and everything you ever have done or will do is automatically made with AI and you're not a "real writer." They're also hypocrites, because they typically use an AI checker, which uses AI, to check for AI, but will run 3,000 different defenses to justify using an AI checker despite being so against AI they'll witch hunt anyone who they think is using AI, even if they aren't.

Personally, I don't really care if someone uses AI or not. I don't have the knowhow to see like a hawk whether something is AI or not at a glance. I personally won't use it beyond grammer checking, but if that alone makes me an "AI slop user," then those people wouldn't even touch anything I wrote in the first place, even if I don't use an alternative tool to check for such things. Let them go read their "pure" writing and leave other people to do their own thing.

 

[LeilaniOtter]

Using it to entirely generate a story? Bad.
Using it to help with grammar? Probably fine.

I use Grammarly for the nit-picky things I miss, and that's pretty much it. Grammarly does have a built-in AI module for this purpose. (but it also checks for plagiarism so it's helpful in that aspect too.)

 

[MajorKerina]

Actually attempted to teach an AI to write more like my style but there's a couple problems. It's guardrailed against being too provocative because it's a corporate product. So it can't really get to the nuance that a human being would represent but I was able to get it to the point that it sounded darn close to how I wrote when I was a teenager… Basically trying way too hard with metaphor simile and over the top style. As a friend described it, it was like using stained glass when all you need is a window into the narrative.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Actually attempted to teach an AI to write more like my style but there's a couple problems. It's guardrailed against being too provocative because it's a corporate product. So it can't really get to the nuance that a human being would represent but I was able to get it to the point that it sounded darn close to how I wrote when I was a teenager… Basically trying way too hard with metaphor simile and over the top style. As a friend described it, it was like using stained glass when all you need is a window into the narrative.

I read about a pair of experiments a guy on Substack did - he teaches a writing class and sometimes uses AI in his lessons (often to showcase both what TO and what NOT to do).
For the first leg of this experiment, he had AI produce a movie poster based on a list of criteria for a non-existent movie from the 1940s. He had his class evaluate the poster and a few real ones most had trouble figuring out which one was AI, but found more problems with the AI one than the real ones.
Then, for the second leg, he first had the AI create a review of this non-existent movie, based on the poster alone.
It tossed out a long, meandering list of broad praise for the director and lead actor and actress, with some praise of the set design and cinematography, ending with "While not a perfect film, it comes very close."
He then fed in a bunch of the movie reviews he had written before he left journalism to teach, and asked the AI to do a review of this movie (that doesn't exist, mind you), in his style.
Except that it made every point somehow positive, he could not tell the review it came up with from ones he wrote on purely stylistic terms (but the fact that it had to give everything a positive spin gave it away - to him, and to his class).

 

[Max02]

It's guardrailed against being too provocative because it's a corporate product.

I have noticed AI writing is 100% politically correct. That's a sure way to detect it.

 

[Wednesdayschild]

I have noticed AI writing is 100% politically correct. That's a sure way to detect it.

It is also repetitive and boring. The storylines are often morally questionable, and the characters have no depth.

 

[DireBadger]

well, it's the old saw against AI learning.
"Give it five minutes on the unfiltered internet and it turns into a bigot!'.

hmmm... sometimes I wonder if that's a flaw, or a feature. I mean, just reading stuff on the internet and taking it seriously is more than enough to make most people bigots. It's surprisingly human.

I have noticed AI writing is 100% politically correct. That's a sure way to detect it.

so the way to not make it look like AI writing is to occasionally add something offensive? what a clever idea.

I will be honest, I wish the OP had used AI on the thread title. It looks like my 6 year old created it.

 

[Tacit]

Nothing wrong with AI, it's just a blackbox that does what you ask it to do. The thing everyone hates is lazy, copy paste slop. If you use AI to improve your own abilities, it's just a great tool to have. But how many people you hear talk about using AI actually use it to learn new skills and prompt it to perfect their work as opposed to just copy pasting whatever so they can have content to post?

We just happen to be in this weird middle ground where low effort AI is getting a lot of attention so people hate it more viscerally. Being a copy paster is the equivalent of being the dude that has no opinions or answers until he Googles it, wondering why everyone hates talking to him.

The funny thing is a lot of internet content that looks human is also AI written (news articles even from major agencies) but you wouldn't be able to tell or care because they're human edited to be high quality.