AI assisted, a vague term on purpose.

Blingbee said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Blingbee said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd say the opposite actually. The writers with the strongest reputations tend to have the most distinct voices - You can recognise a paragraph of Rowling, Tolkien or Clarke instantly. Its when you start dropping into the lower end shelf-fillers that the style begins to be flattened and homogenised. The sort of stuff you might pick up on sale, or if its got an especially catchy premise or smutty cover art, or whatever, but you quickly forget it.

Of course most of us aren't geniuses and will probably need to submit to a significant amount of editoral flattening in order to get published, but that doesn't mean writers aren't going to have mixed feelings about it. The phrase 'you have to learn to kill your darlings' is a widely shared cliche for a reason. You are negotiating your artistic vision with another person, and this discussion is heavily influenced by the realities of money, deadlines and the market; so its complicated and sensitive. That's why you do this sort of thing with someone you have a trustful working relationship with, over multiple rounds of meetings and email correspondence. Most writers wouldn't want to just submit their work to a stranger with a red pen and have it blindly cut to formula.

Even then, a writer on the level of publication has already found their voice, their distinct way of expressing their style. Even if they'll defer at times to the publisher, both parties have the experience and human understanding to push back, to engage in dialogue to explore how they can best express the emotions, themes and tone that they as a writer are trying to achieve.

An AI isn't able to do that. It isn't even an AI in any meaningful sense, it's just a pattern recognition model. It doesn't understand your emotional beats, your themes or characters, nor does it know how to use the craft of writing to best express that stuff, much less in your individual voice - it's just looking at a piece of text and making it conform to statistical patterns. Almost by definition you are applying an algorithm to sand off anything unique and make your work as bland as possible. And like I say, as you get more granular and 'correctable' like with spellchecking, that has more value, but as you zoom out, you quickly lose the sense of what is making the work your own. As a writer you'll never find and develop your voice, and as a reader you'll never find anything other than flavourless junk food, fine for quick binges but fundementally forgettable.

Our_Lady_in_Twilight said:

Even then, a writer on the level of publication has already found their voice, their distinct way of expressing their style. Even if they'll defer at times to the publisher, both parties have the experience and human understanding to push back, to engage in dialogue to explore how they can best express the emotions, themes and tone that they as a writer are trying to achieve.

Click to expand...

Never do what I did and invite multiple editors in a Google Doc to completely debate what is best for your novel. Jesus, I still regret that decision.

Blingbee said:

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

Click to expand...

Hi Blingbee. I'll answer your question but I'm new here and don't know anyone so sorry if I offend.

How are human editors and proofreaders different from AI?

This question goes straight to what I said way up above, "Use as much or as little AI as you're comfortable with." What I mean by that is, how much credit do you want to take for your work?

Human editors take partial credit for published books. The frontmatter gives credit to both the author and the editor. Most bound books are collaborative efforts. Everyone gets credit.

When you use AI, how much of the book is really yours? If it's "ai generated," is it 10% yours? 5%? And if it's "ai assisted," is it 90% yours? 80%? There's no requirement to give credit to AI, so it's like an honor system. It's what you know yourself, as the collaborator. It comes down to what you're comfortable with.

I don't use AI at all. I don't even use grammar checkers. And I use spell check only as a first pass, because I don't trust it. Not because I'm a snob or anything. I just want to credibly claim 99.99% credit. If my name's on it, I wrote it. That's what I'm comfortable with.

I have to laugh about the AI vs. no AI debate. Mainly because I see this in other forms of industry. I'm a woodworker; if you look there, you will have people saying that if you use hand tools only, it's handmade, but the second you use a power tool, it's not. Then let's take it a step further. If you use power tools, it's handmade, but if you use a CNC machine, it's not.

AI is here to stay; if you dig your toes in, you're going to be left behind.

I agree with a couple of previous posts; as a reader, if the story is enjoyable, I personally don't care if you wrote it with AI or with pen and paper. And personally, I don't want to know what tools you used. At the end of the day, after I read a few chapters, if it's dry, lifeless, or boring, I will move onto another story. If someone wants to use AI and not put thought into their writing, they won't last long. Call it natural selection.

This is my personal opinion. And I'm sure it's not a popular one.