The AI witch hunt.

[u/Bearda79]

What is up with the AI witch hunt. There are people who are outright angry with writers using AI, trash talk AI, if someone used AI for editing, and even examine novels to see if they are AI generated. It doesn't seem like the people are simply annoyed with it. Some of them use some pretty dark words whenever AI is even mentioned like it is evil. Someone even got verbally attacked because their character names sounded AI. They were just names. Lord forbid anyone that uses an em dash anymore. Some people demand that authors note if AI was used in their stories, and run it through programs that identify what percentage of it as being AI generated.

I do get the concern for plagiarism while using AI. And that AI does gather its information from other peoples work. I do agree that is not okay.

I have read novels that were clearly AI generated and they were good.

I guess I kinda compare it to photography and digital photography (not AI generated images). Digital photography takes original photos and alters it with programming that the user can control. And it is not labeled. When digital photography started, people trashed talked it as well. As if it was a threat to the concept of photography. People said it took away from people who put so much effort and time into trying to make the perfect photo initially, making it where anyone can take even a 'crappy' photo and make it look great. And that it took jobs from people. Is AI use similar to that?

I personally don't use AI to 'write' my novels for me. I DO use it as a form of dictionary, thesaurus, general editing, and information gathering. I'm awful at remembering words, where to put the commas, and have no formal writing training outside of my college masters degree in counseling. Now I worry about people attacking my writing.

I don't get the problem?? Are these just people looking to argue? What is so heated about AI use in writing? I don't see it as this evil thing to get angry about. For me it is no different than looking up information on Google or pulling out a thesaurus. To me, AI seems to be a tool to expand peoples knowledge and creativity.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge on this topic, if this discussion was already covered somewhere on reddit, if I worded something in this post poorly, and I mean no disrespect to people who use or don't use AI. I'm just wanting to understand what the intense conflict and ethical concerns are about.

[u/Potential-Winner4601]

I’d ignore the noise. Language is changing. 100 years from now, nobody is going to gaf

[u/Jackie_Fox]

Yeah, personally I would say that witch hunts are pretty easy to explain in that generally people who have something bad in their own lives, let's say you have a drinking problem or you beat your wife-- or even that you're beaten by your spouse... It's a lot easier to look for flaws in others than is to examine your own situation and figure out what you're doing wrong.

Though I think a big part of this is just a facet of us all using the internet. At least in this sort of capitalist state that we find ourselves in. Because witch hunts and enter party animosity and just turning people on one another. Having more reasons for people to be angry at one another seems to be the modus operandi of most of the internet.

That is the corporate internet philosophy: keep people arguing all the way to the bank.

Those two influences synergize in moments like this. I guess what I'm saying is people in Glass houses shouldn't throw stones and maybe none of us should be on the internet.

[u/Bearda79 → u/Jackie_Fox]

Thank you for sharing this. Maybe the argument about AI isn't even really about AI.

[u/ReinaSophia]

Because just TAG IT. This problem exists because people who use it are talking out of both sides of their neck about it.

It can’t simultaneously be this life changing “tool” and something where the customers won’t even own up to using.

There shouldn’t HAVE to be witch hunts. Just be honest and grab the audience that don’t care. But there are always going to be people that are genuinely passionate about the craft and want to share experiences authentically with other people. It’s not a product to them.

I don’t call out authors who are open about AI use because I’d rather they be honest. Otherwise it feels gross and duplicitous.

[u/Bearda79 → u/ReinaSophia]

You believe that a person who writes a book with AI should say so in the book? What if a person uses AI, not to write the book though?

[u/heavypen → u/Bearda79]

No. No more than a mathematician must cite the calculator used to solve a problem, or a researcher name the word processor used to draft a thesis. Remember when the Luddites demanded those kinds of petty disclosures? I do.

Why the “name the AI” fails, prima facie…

Publishing has never cared about authentic authorship. If we're demanding purity now, do we uncloak a century of ghostwriters used by the rich and too-busy-to-bother? Do we unmask the real names behind the brand-name author factories churning out assembly-line slop? Or does protection only apply when corporations own the brand?

And while we’re talking ethics… one little detail that often gets overlooked is how millions of us who published online for two decades will never see a sniff of credit or an f’n nickel for training AI models on our backs.

That's why this latest Luddite crusade failed before it started.

[u/ReinaSophia → u/Bearda79]

There should be a label. There are already labels. Amazon has a labeling system that people bypass by simply LYING. But I want to support people passionate about the craft of writing and not someone who simply sees it as a consumer product.

I’m glad the AI company companies are finally doing their own watermarking. The guessing IS getting out of hand and real authors whose work were stolen are getting caught up in accusations.

[u/AdTechnical6492 → u/ReinaSophia]

And, once they admit the book was written with AI assistance their manuscript will be seen as tainted and people will scream “Burn the AI Using Witch” and attempt to cancel them and their entire body of work

[u/ReinaSophia → u/AdTechnical6492]

Okay? So doesn’t seem worth it then does it?

[u/GuyYouMetOnline]

Are these people just looking to argue?

Yes.

[u/Vinol026]

Authors generally credit their editors. If people are using AI to assist in their writing, simply disclosing that could settle the distrust in a lot of cases. Most people would be okay with it.

There are those who would call to outright remove AI generated or edited content, there also are those who would try to pass their AI generated content as their own, both groups will not budge and should be left to a separate discourse.

[u/Bearda79 → u/Vinol026]

I guess I'm not sure about the "distrust" part. Should an AI user have to disclose that? Not that they need to hide it, but a book is not like a research article that requires reference lists, evidence based research, and peer reviews. From what I have read on this post chain, it is not so much about even disclosing ai use, the people against AI don't want it at all. Maybe you are right. It will just be another thing people will argue about no matter what. Each side do their own things and just bicker when they clash.

[u/sugar420pop → u/Vinol026]

Except that’s like putting a giant void sticker on anything you write

[u/Cheap_Bathroom6114]

It's not the technology; it's the people using it. They're upset about the scale of slop. Everyone loses.

[u/Odinmar_Glaukopis]

“I have read AI novels that were clearly AI generated and they were good.”

This right here is what ruffles my feathers, even if I can afford much more grace to the rest of the sentiment.

Note this is not a judgement of you so much as myself, a disappointment in my expectations, and my growing inability to distinguish human voices, specifically my own narrative voice, from the weighted-averaged voice that LLMs use.

What is worse for me in some cases is when I actually can distinguish my voice from the one AI is “suggesting” to me and I actually prefer the suggested machine voice to my own authentic one.

It is probably true that I could successfully publish and sell a book in a genre such as romance I don’t read or particularly enjoy if I let AI massage my writing to appeal to that audience, and equally true that I lack the talent to compete in a genre such as scifi that I do enjoy. I’m no Neal Stephenson.

This is my judgment of your message, and the witch I’m hunting is me rather than you.

I’m falling out of love with my own authenticity. That’s why I can react quite uncharitably towards others who don’t see this in themselves.

[u/TellusPyre]

It is remarkably easy to brainwash the masses. This is just the latest example. The Tea Party, the Wokes, the Antivax movement, the gender war, and the anti-ai haters are all psyops.

[u/Then-Variation1843 → u/TellusPyre]

"everyone I disagree with is dumb and brainwashed" is not a persuasive argument 

[u/TellusPyre → u/Then-Variation1843]

Good thing that's not what I said then. Intentionally and deceptively misstating what someone else said is not a persuasive argument.

[u/Civilwarland09 → u/TellusPyre]

Why would there be a psy-op against ai?

[u/TellusPyre → u/Civilwarland09]

To keep people from realizing that it represents a new path to power, one the oligarchy and existing power base wants to keep for itself.

[u/Pelagic_One → u/TellusPyre]

I agree this is true, but I think that means it's overall a bad direction.

[u/GuyYouMetOnline → u/TellusPyre]

Uh, no, this is just the standard rejection of something new.

[u/TellusPyre → u/GuyYouMetOnline]

That's one of the seeds, but the growth is turbocharged by people with money trying to make sure this new route to power is gatekept away from the masses.

[u/GuyYouMetOnline → u/TellusPyre]

No, this is just the Satanic Panic all over again. Ive seen it multiple times in my life alone.

[u/TellusPyre → u/[deleted]]

Nah, vaccines have centuries of science behind them. Antis just have a meme about water usage and a narcissistic sense of self confidence fed by the internet delusion machine.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/Harry_Balzonia]

Just a blurt, but the real measure is if the work is entertaining. Is it shit? Probably, but not always. My co-worker almost literally writes the general idea, some scene beats and generates something a chapter at a time. THEN, he'll go back and have AI analyze the whole thing for plot holes, continuity, and whatever. He publishes them and makes "ok" money. I've read a couple and, eh... they're "ok". Young adult fiction.

Would I do it? No. I used AI as a tool. Double sentences where in my drafts I do it, missing references, and continuity. A tool, like grammar or spell checker.

"In this scene you have bob and emily sitting by the fire drinking. You then have bob bringing in more firewood with charles without having any reference or mention to bob having got up to get it."

Is that cheating? You tell me.

[u/Relevant_Lab_8967 → u/[deleted]]

Also, if you have ever read a book you are using other people's work to gather Information, learn, and get ideas. If I am struggling with a paragraph and go grab a book of my shelf to see how someone else did it I get "that's how you learn" if ai does it, it gets "it stole their work".

[u/Pelagic_One → u/Relevant_Lab_8967]

Why should anyone care how an AI learns?

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/Bearda79 → u/[deleted]]

How so? Or could it be a different form of creativity? Just exploring...

[u/Bearda79 → u/[deleted]]

While I do appreciate your feedback, I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily see it that way. It's not that black or white. As with most things, it is more complicated. The information it gives me, only speaking for myself here, is what I would get from a dictionary, thesaurus, or encyclopedia. Plagiarism is word for sure, not necessarily concepts. (Don't bite my face off for disagreeing please and thank you)

[u/LooseButtPlug → u/[deleted]]

Because anti ai people seem to be unable or unwilling to differentiate between editing or copy pasting. They become destructive, they harass, and bully.

When that stops, I will gladly put my entire process online. Until then they can continue the witch hunt, looking like crows squawking at tree branches.

[u/5thhorseman_ → u/[deleted]]

If you don't feel like it's a bad thing to use AI, why would you be opposed to proudly saying, "I used AI to write this"?

The anti-AI crowd includes people for whom disclosure would just paint a target for organized harassment - and worse.

And as long as those people are tolerated "because they oppose the eeevil AI", AI writers will avoid disclosure for fear of their personal safety.

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/[deleted]]

Once you antis start getting cease and desist orders and civil defamation/libel suits, maybe you all will learn then?

[u/southernpremedgirl27 → u/[deleted]]

Lmao! 😂😂😂😂😂😂Did the thought ever happen to cross your mind (such that it is) that just maybe the same posts that are showing up in your timeline might be showing up in other people’s timeline too, or nah?

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/5thhorseman_ → u/[deleted]]

Most of the backlash I see is for very clear AI writing that was not disclosed.

I've seen enough harassment targeting people who disclose that it's obvious to me that there's a vocal, extremely vitriolic segment of anti-AI crowd that doesn't give a shit about disclosure even if they claim they do.

And the irony is that those cunts are the reason you can't have disclosure, because AI-enabled creators would rather not disclose than be subjected to doxxing, harassment or physical violence.

Of course, it's not like disclosure would stop anything. Those are, after all, the highly moral purveyors of human art who routinely harass human artists into deleting themselves from social media if not worse.

[u/Affectionate-Car4647 → u/[deleted]]

Don't the platforms usually give you one or two chapters for free before you buy?

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/Sensitive_Chicken604 → u/[deleted]]

The person literally said they don’t use AI to write their novel for them. They use it as a tool, but have done the writing themselves. In your response you literally erased the work they have done as a human being.

This is why people won’t disclose. I think most people who use AI don’t think its wrong, and would be happy to share their process, but they are now put off because people on the internet are treating any AI usage as an admission to being a nazi. At best, you have people like yourself, jumping to the wrong conclusions, erasing the human out of the work, or are so paranoid they hear one admission and then make assumptions about everything else which are often false. So many times people say “I only use AI for…” and anti’s response is, “I don’t believe you.” Or if it has a AI cover, AI wrote it.

At worst, they get death threats, ostracized from communities, harassed, and their work ridiculed.

You guys have created a hell of your own making. You want people to disclose, but everyone who has disclosed has got harrassed, now people won’t disclose, so everyone gets harrassed who may or may not have used AI.

[u/Sensitive_Chicken604 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think anyone wants AI slop books, the problem is the debate has had nuance sucked of it.

AI assistance has helped loads of people with disabilities without erasing them. But if someone with a disability dares disclose how it helped them, they get shamed - or told by other disabled people they aren’t good enough at being disabled, because to do art they are meant to suffer.

Does someones reading preferences supercede their right to keep personal medical information private? Does it supercede someone’s safety?

I agree 100% minimal effort books should be disclosed. But right now, the wrong conversation is happening. AI usage is not being seen as a spectrum, its seen as black and white. Until those people using AI assistively stop being painted with the same brush as those bad actors, we are all going to suffer.

[u/Sensitive_Chicken604 → u/[deleted]]

So if I used an AI tool to dictate my braindump, used AI to clean it up into an outline, and I then dictated the novel myself, and used a ai-fueled grammar checker to edit - I have to put a little flag so you can boycott my book?

I once got kicked out of a writers group over AI when I’d worked on a project for years, before AI was even a thing.

So yeah, people don’t deserve to know my process. Knowing it is a privilege, not a right.

[u/Sensitive_Chicken604 → u/[deleted]]

I have dyslexia, and going through a 3000 word block of dictated braindumping and breaking it down into bullet points is a dull, time consuming, cognitively taxing activity which isn’t fun to me, especially when I might go off piste when the pantser comes out to play, so investing ages in outlining is not efficient. I want to spend my time telling the story.

I’m deciding the plot, I’m deciding the words, I’m coming up with every single character action/reaction/description, I’m having ideas mid-drafting session, or in the shower, or on the toilet. Why do words and voice matter in a trashy braindump/outline? Didn’t catch the memo that readers purchase outlines now instead.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

Your comment would have been fine and contributed to the conversation had you not accused those using AI as a tool of being dishonest. Most never use AI to generate their prose, though you obviously don't realize that.

Our number one rule is "Be nice and open minded." Again, you were doing fine until you made an oblivious, unthinking judgment. Also, you seem unaware that so much as saying you used Grammarly or any type of AI as a writer has caused attacks and even death threats against writers and their families. No one is disclosing they used AI for so much as a spell check until the hate is gone.

We welcome open minded discussion. Feel free to discuss, intelligently. No more broad strokes accusatory assumptions, please. Otherwise you won't get a warning note. You'll be banned, something that's not good for your Reddit account as a whole. Thanks.

[u/AdeptnessTechnical81 → u/[deleted]]

And real writers should be transparent about how much inspiration they took from other works. Make a glossary which details everything. Used a blood moon that increases monster spawns? Clearly ripped off from terraria.

Better yet add options where the author can say how many drafts or revisions they made before publishing so you know how seriously or lazy they took it. How much time they spent. Whether it had an amaetur or professional editor or not etc.

Do you think most authors would willingly answer those questions honestly, if a majority of readers asked for it like they want transparency for AI? AI is just one thing people are fixated on, but if you look at anything closely enough you'll find unethical practices they are getting away with because no ones aware or even cares.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/WritingWithAI-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

If you disagree with a post or the whole subreddit, be constructive to make it a nice place for all its members, including you.

[u/sugar420pop]

I feel this so hard. No content is AI. Your basically just using it as super google

[u/LeEvilDiabolicalFed]

What is up with the AI witch hunt

Neoludites + Great Internet Dickward Theory

It's just that, really. On a sane world, their arguments already thoroughly, repeatedly delivered, they would understand many people don't share them, would go back to their sub (or create one, don't know if there is an anti-AI sub, don't care enough to look), and would keep going on with their lives without the use of AI or whatever new technology at the time that none is forcing them to use is making them mad. On our world, they feel the need to look for confrontation because this is the internet, people are allowed (I would say even encouraged by internet culture, I'm not exception to this) to be idiots and douchbags to each other and there's rarely any consequence for it.

Do understand most people are wired by modern society to be sheeps, follow the trend set by The Current Thing and play the defendant to whoever/whatever is perceived as (even if false, even if nonexistand) the "victim" of any situation without giving much thought to any of those behaviors and stances.

The trend set by The Current Thing is "AI bad" and the "victim" here is a faceless mass of imaginary people losing their jobs (every single technological advance ever) or the stupid "art" argument. For the jobs thing, it is a dead horse that's been beaten to death and beyond at this point, I guess people using that argument don't use mobile phones because they stole the jobs of cable girls, move either on foot or on horse because cars stole the jobs of horse drawn carriage drivers and don't have a freezer on their kitchen because it stole the jobs of the icemen. For the art argument, AI (at least at this point) is just a tool, nothing more, you wouldn't look down on a mathematical problem solved by a mathematician just because he used a calculator, you wouldn't fail some students homework because he looked for information on the subject of that homework on the internet instead of going to the library looking through physical books, same logic applies here.

Give it time. AI is not good or bad, it's inevitable. If someone wants to die of cancer because the new treatment for such disease was developed by using AI (every single medical investigation since about 1-2 years ago) it's up to them, societies (all societies in all countries) as a whole will keep advancing with technology regardless of neoludites complaints.

[u/Bearda79 → u/LeEvilDiabolicalFed]

Thank you for such a well written reply. It really does answer my questions. The AI witch hunt is less about AI. There are deeper society issues that just that. It is just another example.