A couple of studies regarding AI writing

[Demesnedenoir]

They are also trained on a lot of slop. AI for writing at its current state might be a bit like millions of AI monkeys typing, but their training probably hurts their ability to get lucky.

AI is a genuine marvel for editing and catching oddball errors. I released Eve of Snows 8 years ago, and just today I thought... let's see what old errors an AI might catch in the MS! I've been over that book a couple of dozen times, with 3 professional passes at editing, and it was rated an A for editing by a professional reviewer, and I'll be damned if it didn't pull up errors that got by. I had a diacritic Istinjôln once in the book, and bam! Caught that little bastard. A total hangover from my first draft. Double spaced in one spot. One minor character's name got misspelled twice. And there were others far more WTF!? as far as errors go. I was floored. It also flagged things I left as is, because not every grammatical error is a mistake, heh heh.

The fact that I can tell a machine "Hard errors ONLY" and it skips almost all of my idiosyncrasies is amazing as hell.

Plus you can be very rude to an AI editor, saying things I'd never say to a living one, heh heh.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

Broadly speaking, and after all that has been said in this thread, it feels to me like we are going through our own version of the "Red flag law" days for AI as it happened with the automobile industry in the past. AI is still very new for the general public and evolving so fast that we're still figuring it out. By the way, Mad Swede , I think you are going to have a hard time avoiding AI altogether because it is essentially in everything now. You have to assume that all search engines run on it, tools like M$ Office already come with AI integrated in them, it is also found in popular design tools like Canva or Photoshop, online dictionaries and translator tools have it too, and I'm sure the number of book publishers using AI in some capacity is increasing (they have to remain competitive, no matter how niche they are). So, yeah Amazon can go and close accounts because some random "witch hunter" accuses authors of using AI tools in their fiction, until the day an author (or a group of them) sues Amazon (and the witch hunter) for damages. Also, there are alternatives to Amazon (Gumroad) that seem to work well enough.

To me, the question is not so much about using AI, is more about how you use it and the quality of what you produce with it. Before AI, we already had issues about creators ripping off other artists (art forgery has been around for a long while, and creators have been stealing from each other constantly—what was Star Wars originally but a flashy ripoff of Dune and Foundation in the Buck Rogers spirit?). Sure AI enables both slop production and IP theft, but also can empower the fight against both.

Regarding the matter of AI-detection tools, Anthropic has decided to apply a rather smart way (based on the SynthID-Text method invented by Google) to watermark its Claude outputs. The text the model returns is "poisoned" with certain randomly chosen words (which still fit in the output) that could be detected with a specialized tool, although Anthropic recognizes relevant limitations for this technique (check out section "Which specific method of watermarking do you use?" in the Anthropic article). This highlights the issues around AI detection tools, and also reinforces my posture regarding how to use AI properly in creative writing: never by just copying and pasting its output unless it is just for your own notes or documentation. On the other hand, those who run models locally may not be affected at all by this watermarking, although this depends if the open-weight models available for local inference end up also trained to watermark their outputs (which may very well happen and soon).

 

[Karlin]

Broadly speaking, and after all that has been said in this thread, it feels to me like we are going through our own version of the "Red flag law" days for AI as it happened with the automobile industry in the past. AI is still very new for the general public and evolving so fast that we're still figuring it out. By the way, Mad Swede , I think you are going to have a hard time avoiding AI altogether because it is essentially in everything now. You have to assume that all search engines run on it, tools like M$ Office already come with AI integrated in them, it is also found in popular design tools like Canva or Photoshop, online dictionaries and translator tools have it too, and I'm sure the number of book publishers using AI in some capacity is increasing (they have to remain competitive, no matter how niche they are). So, yeah Amazon can go and close accounts because some random "witch hunter" accuses authors of using AI tools in their fiction, until the day an author (or a group of them) sues Amazon (and the witch hunter) for damages. Also, there are alternatives to Amazon creators have been stealing from each other constantly—what was Star Wars originally but a flashy ripoff of Dune and Foundation in the Buck Rogers spirit?). Sure AI

Actually, star wars was inspiredby an old Kuradawa movie. The Hidden Fortress

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

That's absolutely right Karlin ! It was another big influence on the movie, although I think Lucas just reused its plot structure and certain aesthetics from the japanese feudal period. I don't know the opinion of Kurosawa on the movie, but I think many on this forum are aware of how annoyed Frank Herbert was about it.

On the bright side of things, many years later Spielberg and Lucas would help Kurosawa in the funding and filming of his 1990's movie Dreams.

 

[Mad Swede]

By the way, Mad Swede , I think you are going to have a hard time avoiding AI altogether because it is essentially in everything now. You have to assume that all search engines run on it, tools like M$ Office already come with AI integrated in them, it is also found in popular design tools like Canva or Photoshop, online dictionaries and translator tools have it too, and I'm sure the number of book publishers using AI in some capacity is increasing (they have to remain competitive, no matter how niche they are). So, yeah Amazon can go and close accounts because some random "witch hunter" accuses authors of using AI tools in their fiction, until the day an author (or a group of them) sues Amazon (and the witch hunter) for damages. Also, there are alternatives to Amazon (Gumroad) that seem to work well enough.

No. If you buy the standalone version of something like Office you don't get the AI capability. Admittedly Microsoft and opther software suppliers would rather you didn't do this, because they make more money from a subscription service like MIcrosoft 365 than they do from standalone licenses.

You can avoid using AI-tools in things like Photoshop, and you do this by not letting the software improve images for you. You do the editing old-style, by hand. This is what I do with GIMP. It takes more time but...

It's the same with search engines, you can ignore the AI-tool suggestions.

My translation software, like my specialist dyslexia software for spelling and grammar checking, does not use AI. As with Office, I have standalone versions of these packages.

And no, my publishers do not use AI-tools. No Swedish publisher does.

 

[pmmg]

To me, the question is not so much about using AI, is more about how you use it and the quality of what you produce with it.

Yeah, and to me, the question is are you using it at all. If you are, you are not a writer.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

No. If you buy the standalone version of something like Office you don't get the AI capability...

Yes, fortunately there are still many options out there that are AI-free. A few months ago, I finally switched from Windows to Linux Mint in part due to this obsession by M$ of pushing AI onto its users. I'll have AI only if I want to have it and can find a real use case for me, not because someone forces me to. I also use GIMP, Libre Office, VS Codium, and some other non-AI tools. The models I run locally are just another separate tool, not some unwanted shadowy entity lurking in my system and sending my data to some Big Tech datacenter for their sole benefit. About the detail of ignoring the AI-tool suggestions, I think that the search engines themselves now are all some sort of AI systems. I mean, being part of them is probably one of the strongest use cases for LLM models.

Yeah, and to me, the question is are you using it at all. If you are, you are not a writer.

Fine. Then to me the question is if you are using anything machine-based at all. If you are not just using quill, ink and paper, and sending your drafts to publishing houses by wax-sealed mail, you certainly are not a writer at all! Further even, and given the name of this forum, you are not a scribe if you are not using clay tablets and stamping cuneiform signs in them. Ok, ok, we can upgrade that a bit to use papyrus and whatever they used to write in them in ancient Egypt. Is that purist enough for you? Or maybe are you trying to be the man waving the red flag in front of the automobile as they did back in the nineteenth century? I do not want to come across as offensive, but judging people like that only leads to pointless conflict.

 

[pmmg]

Fine. Then to me the question is if you are using anything machine-based at all.

I am sorry, but this is weak. The leap from clay tablets to quills is not the same as something else doing the work for you. We are in a creative endeavor. AI is doing the creating. You are not needed. If you are not doing the creating, you have no voice. You have no place in art.

 

[Karlin]

I would rather spend my time creating and writing than worrying about whether other people are real writers or not.

 

[pmmg]

I would too, but the issue repeats, what are we to do?

Ultimately, I think it is a losing battle. AI will over-power the art and something will be lost. But...just as there are diamonds in the ruff, there will be stalwarts, and holdouts, and every once in a while, John Henry will beat the machine.

Personally, I cannot know if one is using AI or not. I may never know. But if I do know, I think less of the artist.

 

[Karlin]

I would too, but the issue repeats, what are we to do?

Ultimately, I think it is a losing battle. AI will over-power the art and something will be lost. But...just as there are diamonds in the ruff, there will be stalwarts, and holdouts, and every once in a while, John Henry will beat the machine.

Personally, I cannot know if one is using AI or not. I may never know. But if I do know, I think less of the artist.

What are we to do? Cuss, move on. Write.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

I am sorry, but this is weak. The leap from clay tablets to quills is not the same as something else doing the work for you. We are in a creative endeavor. AI is doing the creating. You are not needed. If you are not doing the creating, you have no voice. You have no place in art.

Gasp! How this could be? A revelation! My heart skipped a beat! Is it you, THE ONE? The unique divine being who knows what is true and good in all human arts? The artkeeper! Gather round people, let's listen to the crumbs of wisdom he deigns to share with us, mere mortals!
...

Seriously, that sounded quite arrogant. Worse, that judgement you solemnly sentenced me with (thanks for the laughs, btw), you have applied to all the scribes here also trying the tech out (and I suspect they are many). A bit concerning since the words come from such a senior member of this forum.

You reject the tech? Fine, I completely understand your concerns (and I do have mine, mind you). Just judge the methods and their results if you will, but careful of judging others gratuitously like you have done with me. May Satan forbid that you are found one day using Google Search or having the mere thought of testing an AI tool to produce a cover. Because that day, from that moment on, you no longer will be pure. You'll become a tainted one like the rest of us. Forever.

On the other hand, the idea of stalwarts of the arts is quite loaded. Who are the keepers of those stalwarts? Who choses them? The same kind of people unable to see, in their time, the beauty in Van Gohg's paintings or those publishing houses incapable to sense the great success Frank Herbert's Dune would end up having? Beware of keepers, I'd say. They have their place although they tend to turn their responsibilities into stagnating narrowsighted power like, you know, dictators.

 

[pmmg]

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[pmmg]

Worse, that judgement you solemnly sentenced me with (thanks for the laughs, btw), you have applied to all the scribes here also trying the tech out (and I suspect they are many). A bit concerning since the words come from such a senior member of this forum.

Yes, I have. You can think of it what you like. No one has to listen to me. But if you want to use AI, I am thinking less of your work. And thats about that.

You decide who you will be.

 

[Ban]

I wouldn't phrase it as such, but I do agree with pmmg's sentiment. In the past when it became apparent that celebrities hired ghost writers to write their books, we (fellow amateurs and few professionals alike) didn't refer to those celebrities as authors and placed rather little value on their "guidance" of the ghost writer. I see no reason to apply a different standard for AI. Just because the LLM generates text to yap, instead of opening its mouth or tapping keys scarcely makes a difference.

 

[pmmg]

I was probably a little sloppy with this comment.

Yeah, and to me, the question is are you using it at all. If you are, you are not a writer.

Maybe I should have said something like...to the degree that you are using AI, I am thinking less of your work, but...I was addressing the attitude that some AI is okay. Maybe it is. But then there is the issue of trust. You say you only used it for X, and I am to believe you. You reach for shortcuts, and soon that becomes all you have.

I want what you can do. I already know the machine can do it.

But, you know...everyone wants an easier way. I'm not going to stop you. I am just calling on you to be more...meaningful to the process.

/AI

 

[GothAngel]

I was probably a little sloppy with this comment.



Maybe I should have said something like...to the degree that you are using AI, I am thinking less of your work, but...I was addressing the attitude that some AI is okay. Maybe it is. But then there is the issue of trust. You say you only used it for X, and I am to believe you. You reach for shortcuts, and soon that becomes all you have.

I want what you can do. I already know the machine can do it.

But, you know...everyone wants an easier way. I'm not going to stop you. I am just calling on you to be more...meaningful to the process.

/AI

i agree with you my love. good job on saying that better and respectful. love you pmmg

 

[pmmg]

Wow... Thank you for that.

I was just saying I am not a fan of AI. Its okay if others dont agree.

 

[diremoon]

Interesting studies, thanks for linking them. I think they’re useful, although I’d be a little more cautious about some of the conclusions being drawn from them.

The biggest distinction for me is between AI-generated writing and AI being used as a tool during writing. Those can involve completely different processes, but discussions about AI often bundle them together.

Eduardo Ficaria said:
Curated AI writing may already have the potential to commercially outperform the best AI-free authors out there.

This is probably the point where I’d be a little more cautious.

The second study is interesting, but I don’t think it quite demonstrates that. What it seems to show is that, under experimental conditions, people are not particularly reliable at identifying AI-written short fiction and that their stated dislike of AI does not always match their blind preferences.

That is still significant, but a ~1,000-word short story is a very different test from sustaining a 100,000-word novel, never mind a multi-book series. Commercial success also involves reputation, editing, covers, marketing, genre expectations, character attachment and reader loyalty.

So I think there is a fairly big jump between “readers sometimes prefer an AI-generated short story” and “AI fiction can outperform the best human authors commercially.”

Eduardo Ficaria said:
The first study mentions how AI systems have lowered the cost of production of written fiction...

This is actually the part that worries me more than whether AI can write something better than a human.

AI-generated books don’t necessarily need to be better than traditionally written books to cause problems. If the cost of producing a book becomes extremely low, someone can generate hundreds or thousands of reasonably competent books and flood discovery systems.

At that point the problem isn’t necessarily “AI replaces good authors because readers prefer it.”

It can simply be “there is so much content that readers have a harder time finding good authors in the first place.”

That seems much closer to what the Kindle Unlimited study is describing.

Eduardo Ficaria said:
I suspect certain publishing houses may consider, if they are not doing it already, using AI to lower their costs...

I think this is also where the terminology starts becoming important, because “using AI” can describe wildly different things.

Someone asking an AI to produce fifty novels and publishing them is doing something fundamentally different from someone using it to research medieval agriculture, organise worldbuilding notes, check continuity, brainstorm possible names, critique a scene or help identify repeated information.

I use AI fairly heavily myself, but mostly in that second category.

For example, a lot of my worldbuilding is large enough that I use it as a kind of searchable sounding board: does this contradict something I established earlier? Have I explained this concept three times? Give me ten possible names. Does this economic assumption actually make sense?

I’ve also used it for idea generation, but usually in the form of throwing possibilities at me and then me going “yes, no, absolutely not, maybe, combine those two” until I work out what I actually want.

So I certainly wouldn’t describe my process as “AI-free”, but neither would I describe the resulting fiction as AI-written.

Eduardo Ficaria said:
humans are also very bad at telling if a text is AI generated or not

This is another reason I think that distinction matters.

We’re already getting into a slightly unpleasant situation where people are trying to identify AI use from linguistic tells that aren't actually reliable. A human writer can naturally use em dashes, certain sentence structures or particular vocabulary and suddenly find themselves accused of using AI.

Meanwhile somebody who has used AI extensively can edit the output enough that nobody notices.

That makes trying to police authors by “AI vibes” pretty dubious.

I'd much rather judge the actual process and behaviour: generating industrial quantities of books, impersonating another author's style, misrepresenting authorship, etc., rather than treating particular punctuation or prose habits as evidence.

Eduardo Ficaria said:
Amazon is already putting up some barriers to the flood of AI slop, but its growth seems unstoppable.

This is probably the part I agree with most strongly.

The thing I’m concerned about isn't really AI becoming a better novelist than humans. It is industrial-scale content production overwhelming systems that were designed around the assumption that producing a novel requires a substantial investment of human time.

If one person can suddenly produce hundreds of “good enough” books, recommendation systems, search results and payout models have to cope with something they were never designed for.

I suspect we’re eventually going to need much better terminology as well. At the moment someone using Grammarly, someone using AI as a developmental sounding board, someone rewriting generated passages and someone generating fifty novels a month can all end up under the label “AI author”.

Those are radically different behaviours, and lumping them together makes the ethical and practical discussion much harder than it needs to be.

 

[JBCrowson]

An issue I have with AI that hasn't been mentioned as far as I can see, is that the systems have all been trained using millions of copyrighted works without compensation or attribution to or of their creators.

By using them (in any context, not just creative writing) we are complicit in that intellectual property theft.

For sure this is a horse that has bolted in North America.