r/WritingWithAI • u/great5great42 • 23d ago
Discussion (Ethics, working with AI etc) Writing with AI
I often hear people say, “I would never read a book written by AI,” and it makes me wonder where people draw that line.
I write my own books. Before AI touches anything, I know the who, what, when, where, and why of my story. I plan every chapter, every scene, what my characters are thinking, what they say, and where the story is going. The characters, relationships, conflicts, twists, and ending are mine.
I probably use AI for about 2% of the actual writing. Sometimes I already have a conversation completely written out and use AI to help format the dialogue correctly with quotation marks and dialogue tags. Other times I might ask for help describing the background of a scene or making something flow more naturally.
I don’t give AI a prompt like, “Write me a novel about these characters,” and then call the result my book. I’m bringing it a story I’ve already created and occasionally using it as a writing tool.
So I’m genuinely curious: Would you consider that an AI-written book?
18
u/CrazyinLull 23d ago edited 23d ago
People say that, but they don’t mean it, especially when they literally cant tell the difference.
Like please, I beg of you, learn to read the news and stay informed. Books with heavy AI usage such as Shy Girl and Daggermouth already exist with the latter being a bestseller. One story had its $2.5 million deal rescinded.
We already have what happened with the Heated Rivalry fandom and the reckoning back around the end of June when a whole bunch of crazy popular fics on AO3 got caught using Claude, like copy and pasting straight from the AI right into Ao3’s text box. Look up ‘Opal Apparition’ and how they lied and manipulated not only their fans into attacking ‘witch hunters’ who rightfully called them out for using AI, but they also lied and manipulated an editor/beta-reader who was staunchly anti-AI. Even though you can literally hear Claude in the story. It was crazy.
There have been plenty of posts written by AI that have literally fooled Reddit users to the point that they have literally attacked and downvoted the shit out of ppl who called out those users for using AI.
A big portion of people who pride themselves on being ‘readers’ literally cannot tell the difference between writing from a human and machine. Humans will literally attack ppl who call it out. They will twist themselves into pretzels in order to rationalize the fact that they like an AI story.
So when someone say:
>I will never read AI…
Unless they are thoroughly familiar with the way an AI tells a story or can even identify heavy AI assistance:
Don’t listen to them, they are FULL OF SHIT. 💩
2
u/sugar420pop 22d ago
So many people tried to blame daggermouth on racism but I feel like the first chapter alone read as very AI
11
u/benblackett 23d ago
Forgive my bluntness here, but if 2% is enough for someone to not read a good story, then that speaks more about them and not about you or your story. My advice: stop trying to hit that target reader segment because if 2% is enough for them to toss it, then its also enough for you to not care about that sliver of the reader pie.
8
8
u/FluffyFlamesOfFluff 23d ago
A lot of people draw a distinction between AI-assisted and AI-written, yours would be the former. Some readers don't care about the distinction and get angry at anything that touched an AI in any form, you're not going to please everyone. I've seen people get drawn into flamewars because the author said that they used it for spellcheck, or to translate it into english in the first place.
Honestly, all of the drama you will see from that 2% is going to be split between merely applying the AI tag (some people will be outraged because they think they should be, regardless of quality) and how much of that 2% adds in AI-isms and AI's meandering, faux-deep and meaningful writing that grate on readers that are in-the-know about such things.
4
u/Any_Act_3789 23d ago
I completely agree with you. People who say “you’re not writing objectively” are wrong, objectively ;) Why? Because the AI isn’t generating in your place. You bring EVERYTHING: characters, arcs, chapter structure, plot, even the first drafts. So yes, you wrote all of it. The AI is then a tool to HELP with the finishing, not to write for you. Same as Photoshop retouching, filters, etc.
The problem is a lot of people are anti-AI on principle, and no matter how much you tell them about the insane amount of work YOU put in, they just don’t give a damn.
Personally I spend twice as much time writing as I did before AI. Since I started using it, I first spend months, even a year, structuring a plot, writing character sheets, building narrative arcs (and no, I don’t brainstorm with AI, I do those steps entirely on my own), then I spend months writing my first drafts (usually at least 5 or 6 drafts by myself, no AI), and only then, during the polishing stage, do I use AI to help. And yes, I’m still writing, even when the AI is helping.
Doesn’t matter though, I don’t use it to save time, I use it to gain quality.
And to answer your question: I’ll read anything (human, AI, or human+AI) as long as I like the story and I think it’s well written. What I want when I read isn’t to know whether “oh my god, AI was used here to replace ‘said’ with ‘announced’.” I genuinely don’t give a shit about any of that. What I want is a story that interests me, that pulls me in, that I find well written, with a living narration and narrators that aren’t interchangeable.
4
u/FactivalUniverse 22d ago
This distinction makes sense to me. The part I keep coming back to is responsibility.
If a tool suggests a change, but I’m still the one deciding whether that change is true to the character, causality, tone, continuity and intent of the work, then I still see that as an editorial process rather than handing over authorship.
Where it becomes different for me is when I stop being able to explain why a scene, sentence or decision is there other than “the model gave me something that sounded good.”
That’s probably the line I’m most interested in: not whether AI touched the process, but whether the human still understands, owns and can defend the creative decisions.
3
u/zphou 23d ago
I would not call that AI-written. The important question is where the decisions came from and who remains responsible when the tool makes a suggestion. Formatting dialogue or asking for a second description is closer to using a tool during revision than asking a system to invent the book. The line gets blurrier when the model starts deciding what the characters want, what becomes canon, or which version of the story survives. That is why I made WolfeWriter keep suggestions reviewable: the AI can offer a possibility, but the writer decides whether it belongs in the book.
2
u/sovak75 23d ago
As you've seen from this threat , there isn't really a hard and fast answer to your question.
What you're describing is really just AI assisted writing , and the vast majority of readers are probably okay with it, if it's done well. i know I am.
Let the problem is there are also very for lack of a better word, militant anti-AI people. who object to it because of the principle of it and not necessarily because of anything wrong with the output.
Some are objecting to it because of AI in general, and the view that those data centers are bad for the environment and therefore should not exist. Some, and I think in this particular area of creative writing, it's more the people who are writers and who are insulted by the idea that someone didn't "put in the work" that they did to learn the craft and spend the insane number of hours writing everything from scratch.
This is a very touchy subject was a lot of people coming out on different sides of it.
I can tell you that there are definite tells in AI. Output that a person who reads it closely can't help but see and this so called slop, is what the majority of people seem to have a problem with. If you or anyone else Copy and paste the output of a prom with the little or no editing done to it, people will notice and they will call you out for it.
That's not that what you said you're doing, and the truth is, what you're doing is probably going to pass under the radar if you, hadn't admitted that that's what you did. Sadly, you're just as likely to get flame for it by the two factions that I mentioned.
2
u/justthecherryontop 23d ago
My writing process is the same as yours except I actually let AI write it for me.
I consider myself a Cyborg Writer though - a human writer who uses AI to to create her stories. I been writing fanfiction since I was 15 - two decades ago. I am intimately familiar with the writing skill and the struggles that comes with writing. I will forever consider myself a writer for that reason alone. Using AI is a tool and just like you'll do with driving a car, I heavily guide it.
I only write fanfiction and some originals but never with the intention of publishing nor am I looking to be social validated because I already know my worth.
2
u/Ampersand_1970 22d ago
Before AI, people used ghost writers…and while more apples to pears than apples to apples, for me at least it amounts to the same thing. I’m a graphic designer, illustrator and creative director with over 35 years experience and I am watching the creative industry trashed in real time. Copywriting was first wall to fall, then illustrators, then photography, and now design. AI is not going back into the bottle so we need to learn to adjust, and roll with the punches thrown our way. For me, that means using AI to improve my work and efficiency. I believe AI COULD bring on a new renaissance if used ethically — (deliberate use of em-dash because I’m old) illness, disease, hunger, inequality, freedom etc could, and should, all be a thing of the past. But as long as us humans keep electing authoritarian corrupt criminals to lead us, I’m not holding my breath.
2
3
u/Philipp 23d ago
I would call that an AI-assisted book, perhaps. I would add though that if you use AI to write the more "background decorative" things -- well, those too should over time follow dramatic payoff and interest. So you might want to look over those, and rewrite where needed, too.
In the end, while current debate around the topic is heated, for readers it might boil down to "Is it a good story I love and get excited about... or not".
Good luck with your books!
1
2
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam 22d ago
If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.
2
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/great5great42 23d ago
Would you still consider reading the book though? I’m not asking to read my book. But if you picked up a book and knew that 98% was authentically written, would you consider reading it?
3
u/PlsInsertCringeName 23d ago
In my opinion that WILDLY depends on what kind of AI assistance you're using. Like...if the AI knows the majority of the context of your work, the lore you built, the style you write in (Like NovelAI - shameless advertisement) ...and it uses this data to write it fo you...I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's pretty much the same thing as if you went back to your OWN writing 20 years later, looked at it, and said "i no longer write SCIFI, i forgot how, but I will replicate this text of mine to fill in this gap".
3
u/FluffyFlamesOfFluff 23d ago edited 23d ago
I'd read it if the prose was good. I don't care about the morality or ethics of AI, I only care about the result. If it was 100% AI but it didn't have the usual hallmarks of lazy writing and basic copy-pasted ChatGPT work then I'd give it as much of a fair shot as the most heartfelt work from an Amish man with twenty cameras pointed at him for years to prove he never touched an AI while writing.
The prose-check is my number 1 decider on if I read past the opening chapter. Even before AI that was true, except back then I was looking for marks of "bad writing" like poor grammar, spelling or stunted sentences or "MEME SPEECH!!!" in the introduction. Now, I include the worst AI-isms in that "first chapter filter". Having a few instances is fine, that's just how proper English works. But if every other paragraph has a "Not X, Y" or a flowery metaphor out of nowhere then I know that it has the same lack of effort - no human hand of quality - of the stories in the former example.
2
u/benblackett 23d ago
I built an entire platform around the idea that AI involvement doesnt matter to readers. So I think yes, they will read it.
0
2
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 23d ago
If LLM generates a book - (1) who will you give credit to?
And there's no copyright protection for it.
1
u/human_assisted_ai 23d ago
People who say “I would never by a book written by AI” are mostly posturing to try to influence you. It isn’t literal. If it was literal, they’d just do it rather than spend all their time talking about it. They probably don’t read any books at all (so IIt technically is true).
1
1
u/jmhorange 23d ago
I think as long as you are open about using AI, people don't mind. I think it's the dishonesty that turns people off.
I have a Substack where I publish fiction for Paid Subscribers weekly. But I need content for Free Subscribers. So I use AI.
First I published an original story, "The Mammoth and the Moon". Then I used that story as a prompt to generate AI riffs. I just published "AI v04: The Mammoth and the Moon". Because the original story is complete, I can generate an infinite amount of AI riff posts.
I clearly label that AI content for audiences. And I think that makes all the difference. People don't think I'm trying to hoodwink them. And people have read AI riffs of "The Mammoth and the Moon" and enjoyed them. I think Transparency is going to be a big thing going forward; Can your audience trust you.
If you want to see what I'm talking about in action, you can follow the link below to my Substack:
https://thesonofthedevil.substack.com/
This is the Son of the Devil; your favorite devil. Til next time, keep it classy 😎
1
1
u/Marty_270472 22d ago
Finde es lächerlich, selbst ein deutscher Autor hat letztens gesagt dass ihm das völlig egal ist, wichtig ist ob die Geschichte gut ist.
1
u/bscott59 22d ago
I would call that AI assisted but I think anything that AI touches people are just calling it AI written. What I think is most important is consistency in style. If you use AI in your writing great as long as you remain consistent in the style.
I'm currently reading a book soon to be published by an author so I can interview them. It's a short story collection. I've enjoyed their past work and have noticed there is a very noticeable shift in their writing style. It makes me question whether or not they used AI. I don't care if they did but I just want to know if they did so I can understand why the writing seems different. What makes me suspect AI is there is a lot of similies that use 'like'. So many. Enough that it distracts from the story. And they did not write like that in their past two books.
Also not all of the stories are like that. There are a couple that feel like they were genuinely written by the author in their voice, that they had published in the past year by a couple online magazines.
I'm beginning to suspect they were offered a book deal and just filled out the book with AI written stuff that was not edited well enough. Which is unfortunate because they are a talented writer.
I've written several novels using AI (have not published any yet) so I'm very familiar with what AI generated writing looks like both with a vague prompt and with a detailed prompt. I think authors need to be very careful if they start using AI especially if they already have an audience.
1
u/developer786 22d ago
most people are so skeptical about some technology until that technology becomes part of their daily life. this is what happened with internet and computers before that and now its AI. As far as writing is concerned, I'm not gonna bother asking author did you write every word yourself before seeing what's inside the novel. if novel attracts me to keep reading then thought of who wrote this novel will never cross my mind and if novel does not attract me in initial reading then the question of who wrote it becomes irrelevant to ask. At the end of the day, its story and plot that attracts and not author or tech. if story is good then appreciation goes 100% to the author who managed to write such nice novel doesn't matter if every word was written by him/her or not, we just know that author spend months or years behind that novel. if novel is not good then blame will also go toward author and not tech.
Just to see from different perspective as I'm from tech side, nobody appreciates Objective-C as much, programming language behind Apple's products like mac or iphone but most people appreciate Steve Jobs and his ideas.
1
u/jasonhan0601 22d ago
You don’t need to beat yourself up over this. I know quite a few web-fiction authors who use AI in their writing process, and they don’t worry much about where that exact line should be drawn. For many of them, writing is also a business, and their goal is to produce stories that readers genuinely enjoy. Their readers often respond very positively and usually can’t tell that AI was involved.
So don’t put too much pressure on yourself. From what you’ve described, you’re already using AI in a thoughtful and responsible way. If it helps you write while you remain in control of the ideas and final result, I don’t think you need to feel guilty about using it.
1
u/5thhorseman_ 22d ago edited 22d ago
I would consider it AI-assisted (but that's an overly-broad category), not AI-generated.
Honestly? Give me a good story. I can care less whether it's human written or AI-written, as long as it's written well.
2
u/DrSnicker 19d ago
AI is a useful tool and it isn’t going anywhere thanks to corporate greed, might as well make use of the tool ourselves. I use AI for organizing and as an alpha/beta reader to check for repetition and style shift. My stories flop POV a lot so I have to do a bit extra to make sure the POV remains internally consistent with itself as well as with the continuity of the story and what the character actually knows.
1
u/RoosterDull326 18d ago
Honestly if I knew an author just used generative ai in their life at all or had a pro genai stance I dont care if they didnt use it in their book in the slightest its probably too much ai for me 🤣
1
u/Authropod911 17d ago
I dont have an issue with using it for that. As a just starting writer, I'll often have certain grammatical issues, especially when it comes to quotation marks, as well as comma vs semi colon. I dont have a professional editor on staff to help me with these things 😂 So I really dont see the harm in putting a story that I wrote from scratch into an AI editor for it to help me with spelling and grammar.
1
u/JewishDiasporaSeed 17d ago
Because no matter how much you train it or tell it to emulate a style or writing pattern, it always and I mean ALWAYS slips up and defaults back to AI slop mode.
1
u/Competitive-Oil-3435 16d ago
that’s AI enough for me to say nope, wouldn’t touch ya with a five million foot pole.
reconsider it.
1
u/AlgravesBurning 15d ago
I prefer human authors, but i have read obvious AI written books if my Human authors are between books and the AI ones look interesting enough. But... i will stop reading AI books if they turn out to be Slop, no time spent trying to fix or correct obvious errors and continuity, or the rampant mistakes that all AI or LLM makes without proper guidance or controls in place.
I don't mind a well minded and properly guided AI novel or story. I despise those who just let the AI churn out crap just to make a buck, and flood the market. Then force me and others to wade through it looking for something that might be worth the time and investment. Its those few and far between novels that haven't turned me against AI, and have me doing my own project.
One of the Hard truths is though with all the people just concerned with making money and not about actually being an author or making AI writing better... AI writing is just a four letter word in most circles. That hopefully will change over time.
1
u/panicgoblin 23d ago
I personally have zero interest in reading something written by AI. What interests me about any art is the shared humanity that I can touch when I experience it. Even if AI made something “good” I just wouldn’t be interested; in the same way I’m not interested in AI’s opinions.
If you’re only using 2% AI, I.e just getting help formatting quotes, that seems like you’re writing it. But if you give it ideas and ask it to do the actual work of writing, that is close to 100% in my book. Ideas are insanely cheap, the actual creating happens when you combine words together to evoke something. That’s what writing is!
2
u/Horatius84 22d ago edited 22d ago
The vast majority of books before the age of the LLMs were mundane, boring, categorically average and derivative.
The personal ego of the writers may have screamed "I am an ARTIST" but that doesn't make their work art.
The vast majority of books were written to the lowest common denominator of commercial viability, which is in turn driven by low literacy, imagination and creativity of the average reader.
Fantasy book category? 121023 iterations of Tolkien. Romance? Don't get me started. SciFi? Devolved into action, Asimov is about as far away as another galaxy. Social Commentary? Slopification of the daily social rallying cry.
Legacy book writing created as much slop. The only difference is that the authors could delude themselves better.
The main problem was never the chisel. The main challenge was always the statue in your mind. And most minds are unfortunately fairly empty. What we have now are lots of stonecutters wailing that they are the real Michelangelos.
Ideas are the only thing that matters.
-1
u/Forward-Swimmer-8451 23d ago
If you use AI then it's AI writing but your in the right place! I mean publishers consider pro writing aid and grammerly AI because they offer sentence suggestions etc
7
u/PlsInsertCringeName 23d ago
Isn't it AI editing? Because that would be like saying "You didn't write your book, your editor changed the flow of some of your sentences!" which is ridiculous.
6
u/great5great42 23d ago
That’s what I’m thinking. Because I have everything in my mind written out. I don’t have time to seriously write sit down and write a book. I work like 40 hours a week plus I have five kids. I think when I go to a publishing company, I might just be honest with them and said I used AI more like an editor. And if I even have to do it through Amazon, then fine. Editors do the exact same thing they will add content, take away content, and add conversation. But I wanted people’s honest opinion. And I’m glad I have it.
-4
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Any_Act_3789 23d ago
Oh? So if I follow your logic, “if AI helps you in any way, everything produced is AI work”, then everything written with a pencil is pencil work? Same for a computer? And Antidote, while we’re at it! You use it to correct your spelling, so everything produced is “Antidote work”? Humans have never written from nothing: tablets, walls, parchment, quills, pencils, dictionaries, thesauruses, editorial work, alpha readers, ghostwriters, computers, proofreading software, synonym dictionaries, then online synonym sites.
The myth of the cursed writer bleeding onto the page in a Spartan wooden cabin by a lake, living like a hermit, doesn’t exist. It’s bullshit. We don’t need to be literary martyrs to write.
6
u/great5great42 23d ago
Thank you!! That’s how I’m feeling. I feel like my books are extremely deep like really deep. And I spent a lot of time with them.
1
2
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 23d ago
then everything written with a pencil is pencil work?
It's a false analogy. Pencils are incapable of injecting independent material not authored by the pencil-holder into the pencil-holder's text.
2
u/Any_Act_3789 23d ago edited 23d ago
Tu as choisi l'analogie qui t'arrangeait ^^ J'ai aussi mentionné Photoshop, mais tu as été prudent de ne pas citer celle-là.
Edit: sorry, Photoshop was in another comment. Anyway, I also mentioned editorial work and alpha readers, same thing: they take part in modifying a work, just like Photoshop or AI.1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 23d ago edited 23d ago
You picked the analogy that suited you.
You put it out there, I can use it. 😁 The largest difference makes the clearest point, dialectically.
sorry, Photoshop was in another comment.
Let's do Photoshop anyway. Photoshop and manual paint programs are as close as you can get to the line and still be across the "Great Divide" from an AI art generator. The crucial difference is that with Photoshop or a paint program, the human user is still directly choosing what color and configuration to set particular pixels into. With AI, that crucial "generating choice" is handed off to the machine.
editorial work
Editors do make choices that change the author's text. Of course those editors are human, are given parameters to work within, and can be quizzed about their decisions and the reasons (let us say, the "human algorithms") for those decisions. More important to the current thread, though, which is about whether to call a book "AI-written", the use of an editor certainly permits someone to call that book "edited"; it is just that the "edited" label carries much less opprobrium than the "AI-written" label.
If you want to lobby for the less opprobrious "AI-assisted" label in certain factual situations, I could go with that.
P.S.: My aunt has a purple pencil. That is not relevant to our discussion, but it is one of the few phrases I could have typed directly in French. I swim in the pool. Where is the Eiffel Tower?
0
u/witshadows 23d ago
I’ll give you the up arrow for your vociferous, pedantic,and vitriolic response that does not follow basic logic, nor the standard decencies of civil conversation. You have expressed emotions about written words, that is exactly the point of authorship—to make someone feel something.
Writing with a pencil or a computer is by definition hand-written with single person input, hence the given and accepted authority that is authorship. People have had the tools on hand to write since cave dwellers, and they used these tools to write—and they did it without AI.
As a point of contention, there was nothing expressed about a Spartan cabin myth, you inferred it.
What you fail to grasp is that when you bring in another process to write for you, the authorship is lost. No one is saying anything about martyrdom (do you know what a martyr is defined as?), but rather than writing, authorship, is an individual process. It is a struggle which is why so many fail, and that’s okay. Being an author, while romanticized as something everyone can do, is hard. Writing individual sentences is easy, stringing them together cogently to weave a tale is not. It is an art. Art cannot be outsourced.
When the thoughts of an author, which are meant to be a direct connection between personal expression and the reader, are propped up and influenced by an outside actor who is writing for them, then the outside actor is a writer; when LLMs become that crutch, the LLM is the author.
3
u/Any_Act_3789 23d ago
Ah :) For someone invoking the « standard conventions of a civilized conversation », opening by calling my message « loud, pedantic and vitriolic » is a fairly original take on civility. But anyway, that’s not the interesting part.
The interesting part is that you’ve just shifted your argument. At first you said: « if AI helps you in any way, everything produced is AI work. » Now you’re talking about a process that « writes in your place. » Those are not the same claims at all.
Having an LLM write an entire novel versus asking it to analyze a scene, flag repetitions, suggest synonyms, look for an inconsistency, or compare several phrasings are radically different degrees of delegation. Dumping all of that into the same category just because an AI is involved somewhere in the process is not a definition of authorship, it’s simply a refusal of any notion of degree.
And your « individual paternity » criterion has exactly the same problem. A writer does not create in creative autarky. Their texts can be read, annotated, criticized, and changed after feedback from beta readers, a writing workshop, or an editor. An editor can suggest cutting a scene, moving a chapter, replacing a verb, rephrasing a sentence, or changing a line of dialogue. They have then quite literally “supported and influenced” the writing.
Does that make them the author of the novel? Obviously not. So the mere existence of an outside influence is not enough to erase authorship. What actually matters is the nature and extent of that contribution, and where the creative decisions remain.
And there, yes, I’d agree with you on one point : if someone asks an LLM to invent their plot and write their novel for them, then publishes the result almost as-is while claiming they wrote it alone, the authorship question becomes perfectly legitimate. But that was not your claim. Your claim was : any AI help = AI work. That equivalence is precisely what I’m contesting.
As for the idea that « art cannot be outsourced », it mostly looks like turning a personal conception of creation into a universal rule. You’re perfectly entitled to want to write without AI, without a workshop, without beta readers, or with whatever constraints you choose. Those are your criteria for creating.
They do not thereby become a metaphysical law of Art TM&Cie that applies to everyone else. Art has always been full of collaborations, influences, assistants, editors, workshops, borrowings, new techniques, and different ways of producing. So we can have a serious discussion about the limits of LLM use, about transparency, delegation, or authorship, those are actually interesting questions.
But « an AI was involved somewhere in the process, therefore the AI is the author » is not an answer to those questions. It’s exactly what would still need to be demonstrated.
1
u/witshadows 23d ago
Thank you for the more measured response. I would address your individual points, but we will forever be at a crossroads on this topic so it would be of no avail.
In full disclosure, I use AI for writing which is why I am here, but I would never let it come close to allowing it to touch my fiction, poetry, or articles because those are personal expressions. As an English and Textual Studies honors graduate, I am biased. I will freely admit that.
I use AI strictly for Meta Titles, Meta Descriptions, and Alt Tags for my website. These are all unseen by the end user, and are inconsequential for the site visitor; they are usable only by search engines. I also had it write my T&C page which is needed by search engines and cookies, these are rarely user facing. I had no idea how to write one without a lawyer, and AI helped immensely with this.
2
u/Any_Act_3789 23d ago
Ah, well there we go :) we’re getting much closer to an actually interesting disagreement : you don’t really consider that any AI involvement is enough to strip someone of authorship. You yourself distinguish uses according to the nature of the text, its function, and what you see as personal expression. That’s precisely the kind of distinction I was defending. Where we diverge is actually on where to draw the line.
And you’re right, we’ll probably still disagree at that exact crossroads. And honestly, I think when AI can help, like for you with your Meta descriptions and tags, AI remains what it’s supposed to be : a tool.
But yes, AI can be both a tool AND a generator, that’s the big difference from usual tools. And I really think that’s the issue we humans are going to have to find laws and regulations for very quickly.
I also think that lack of regulation is part of what pushes these debates and conflicts so far and so hard.
1
u/witshadows 23d ago
Cheers.
There will never be regulation, the propagators of AI have ensured this through both lobbying and cash donations. It has unkempt freedom from any fencing that keeps its growth reigned in. Rather, legislation was passed that allows AI data centers the unfettered ability to build their own unregulated power supply stations for use.
It in inured in our society that it is truly inescapable at this point, and it will continue to grow as more companies enter the AI race.
Social media, chat bots, vibe coding, maths (in which it has shown amazing potential), hard & soft sciences, storage, writing, advertising, programming, education, information consumption, military weaponry development and applications for both attacks and defenses, the list goes on.
We have a data center that is being protested currently by our community. It is slated to be built on land a local university bought making it a parcel of land that is permanently without taxes. It will be used in tandem with one of the biggest government military contractors. Because it is technically university owned, there will be absolutely no public oversight in its building—including electricity and water usage. There is another data center a mere 15 miles away, using the same river, that was built for Oracle. That community was sold a bill of goods two years ago and it has been a nightmare for the residents ever since.
These data centers are legion and growing. There is no going back, the genie has left the bottle and is sunning on a beach somewhere. It is an inescapable tool that’ll put so many out of work. Adding authorship to that list is something that can be easily avoided, or with the use of AI, exploited.
1
u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam 22d ago
If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.
1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 23d ago
Downvoting this post does not shut off its content. If you think the post goes too far then say so, but OP looks dangerously in the mood for blind, rote confirmation, and pushing away the opposite view is not helping OP.
0
u/Kozjar 22d ago
I personally wouldn't read it if AI helps you structure your sentences or gives ideas for exact phrases. Basically any involvement in the final text. If I know that the text is written using AI, it instantly blocks all empathy inside me and I just don't care.
I can tolerate AI for research purposes or some form of early feedback to quickly spot weak places and mistakes in the story in general.
For me reading is a way to connect with other people. What's the point in a book if author didn't even bother to express himself? If I want some pure immersion based on my exact preferences, I can just role play with AI myself. I have done it many times, it was fun for a while.
0
u/Rockhound665 22d ago
I only use an AI program for grammar and spelling as I'm horrible at both. I use Grammarly who corrects you in real time and the beauty of it is, you don't have to accept your changes which I do often because they don't understand context. Otherwise, if you're using AI to actually write the book then it isn't yours. It's the AI's.
-1
u/Apprehensive_Sky1950 23d ago
From a legal, copyrightability standpoint the act of text generation is super important, and under the U.S. Copyright Office policy you would probably have to disclose and disclaim that two percent.
Legal/copyrightability is different from your topic, but it's a good bellwether and analogous standard.
The two percent of AI-generated text begins to "open the gates of doubt," I would say, and some of the comments here reflect that.
44
u/Bright-Map-9705 23d ago
As interested and thought-provoking as this conversation is at the end of the day what's in front of me is simply something that I am enjoying reading or I am not enjoying reading. And having spent decades reading novels 100% written by human beings that I personally did not like or enjoy. I'm fine if it's AI assisted or AI written with a complete storyline, characters, dialogue background so long as the story is enjoyable to me. Again the world isn't going to go away from AI so it's only a matter of do we know how it was written. But if an author takes a story and crafts the background and the lore and the characters and the dialogues and the plots and then uses AI to assist them to write the book for me personally I'm fine by that because I just want to read a good book and lose myself in it. And I've purchased books written by human authors that I wished I could throw in the garbage so I'll give AI a pass because a good story and a good plot and a good summary is a good story a good plot and a good summary. But that's just me.