A couple of studies regarding AI writing

[Eduardo Ficaria]

Hi everyone! I have noticed this discussion titled "the use of AI to sculpt your writing" and I thought it could benefit from having real data about how AI writing is evolving and influencing the publishing industry. I have come across a couple of very recent studies that give us a better perspective of where things seem to be going, at least with current trends:

1. Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for books
   This one is about a study that analyzes the effect of AI-written (partially or totally) books in Amazon's Kindle Unlimited service. In short, the moat for "pure" human writing is thinning and, in general, each book (AI-written or not) makes less money due to the flood of AI-written books. Also, the study explains a particular telltale sign of AI writting, which is about the "abuse" of distinctive "rare language" taken from existing books.
2. Bot or not: Can people tell the difference between stories written by a human or by an AI system?
   This is a study where they make people read short stories (~1000 words) produced either by humans or ChatGPT 4.0 in three different experiments to see how they perceive them, and also if they are able to tell which ones where either written or AI generated. Conclusion, humans are biased against AI although they tend to like their stories more but, at the same time, humans are also very bad at telling if a text is AI generated or not (although some previous experience with AI systems seems to help in detecting AI content).

I recommend reading the articles since they are relatively short, specially if you skip the sections about metodology and research stuff like that. On my part, I'll just leave here my own kind of improvised take on this:

• The studies are just that, studies, not some final nails in humanity's coffin.
• Put together, the studies tell quite a bit about our human biases.
• Curated AI writing may already have the potential to commercially outperform the best AI-free authors out there.
• The first study mentions how AI systems have lowered the cost of production of written fiction, but there is a potential catch to consider. All of those systems have been heavily subsidized, first by Big Tech itself, then by private investors. But the time of their reckoning may be nearing given the financial tensions that are emerging (so much frakking debt in the system!). If there is a crash (or big correction) in the AI sector, that could lead to much higher subscription prices and remove some slop factories from the market. The problem is, like in nature, the strongest of them all will remain and keep on churning product as usual. Even if the monthly cost raises to, let's say, about $2000, if the slop still makes $10000 a month the commercial incentive remains strong.
• I suspect certain publishing houses may consider, if they are not doing it already, using AI to lower their costs and avoid being outcompeted by slop houses. At the same time, could it be that the need for editors and similar staff may go up due to the increase of production? At least to guarantee certain quality levels and avoid embarrassing mistakes. I think I've read something about this but I cannot remember.
• Amazon is already putting up some barriers to the flood of AI slop, but its growth seems unstoppable. Over time, it could very well choke their Kindle Unlimited service and make it worthless.

Hope you find all this informative at least.

 

[Romy]

• Amazon is already putting up some barriers to the flood of AI slop, but its growth seems unstoppable

And Meta spend fortunes on moderating crap and frauds... right? A sale is a sale.

 

[pmmg]

AI is still new. One of my issues with the discussion is the manner of looking at where it is at today, and not looking at where it is going. So, this may be a measure of it today, but AI is still evolving, and rapidly. Until it reaches the point of diminishing returns, its not accurate to take a snap shot and then make some decision about people's attitudes. Those same people may be seeing a product they cant recognize even a year for now.

Just to add to the conversation, I have been seeing a bit of buzz about Claude adding watermarks to AI generated content, thereby making the easier to spot by the big companies, like Amazon and Ingram, which...personally, I think is great (but I have not heard the real pros and cons yet), but I think it will be defeated. Security is always behind the low life element.

I also saw some news about AI company destroying old paper books to get new content. But...I am not sure the real truth of that. Maybe just be to stir things up. I am suspicious of the news on this.

Amazon, I am sure, does not really care. They just want a revenue stream on big ticket items. Ingram, which is completely about books, may have more skin in the game.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

You could post a thousand different studies and not change the core fact: generative AI art is automatically terrible by virtue of being generative AI.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

And Meta spend fortunes on moderating crap and frauds... right? A sale is a sale.

It doesn't seem to me that Mr Suckerberg really likes to spend those dollars in moderation, Romy ... He is just forced to do so by the law. Let's remember that he is known to prioritize profit even over his users' health and he very gladly would burn all that money in the meta-sloppyfication of the whole known universe.

AI is still new. One of my issues with the discussion is the manner of looking at where it is at today, and not looking at where it is going...

You're right pmmg , although the situation with AI tech is evolving rather rapidly. In particular, the issue with the Himalayan peaks of debt burning to fuel its development may reach a critical point this very year. If the crash ends up happening, it could be a real banger!

Regarding the use of AI in writing, what worries me now is the witch hunt happening where some people are now accusing others with no real way to truly discern what has been written with AI or not (as the second study from my original post indicates). I understand the concerns (legal and otherwise), but I find unfair and cynic the double standard where many other professionals can benefit from whatever advantages AI can bring to their jobs, but writers and other artists should not even think of using the damned tool. There are legitimate uses for this new tool that do not involve the stealing (as in "write me a fantasy novel in the style of this famous author") of anything, and many writers are already benefiting in ways I'm sure go completely undetected by readers (for instance, the corrections applied by services like Grammarly). If the final result is better and with a lower production cost (under current subscription prices, mind you), you usually have a winner there.

Another thing to consider about is that the datasets used to train AIs must be full of 100% human-made slop, and that is what they reproduce and amplify at industrial scale when asked to. Certainly, this is a wasteful and pointless way of using such powerful tools.

Regarding the news you have shared pmmg , yes I've read about them. The Claude watermarks are either embedded in the code that gives the text its format, or something like that, meaning that you can remove it by just copying and pasting without the style. You can do this usually when pasting on an editor like Notepad or Notepad++, or by pressing Shift + Ctrl + v in LibreOffice or M$Office where you get a menu asking you which version of the text you want to paste. The second news seems to be just rumours right now, but I would not be surprised if its confirmed as true. If there is something money cannot buy for AI labs right now is new fresh data after they bled the internet dry, and they need humongous loads of it to keep on training their models.

You could post a thousand different studies and not change the core fact: generative AI art is automatically terrible by virtue of being generative AI.

Sorry but no hunterjwizzard , that's your opinion, not a fact. And that "terrible generative AI art" is increasing its sales year on year in Amazon Kindle Unlimited (according to the first study). This means people are getting increasingly used to it and find it good enough for them. Imagine how is it going in similar platforms...

 

[hunterjwizzard]

Sorry but no @hunterjwizzard , that's your opinion, not a fact.

No. It is a fact. Art is about human expression. Take the human out of the equation and you get art that is automatically bad. Or you can take the stance that "its not art" anymore, at which point why are we discussing it on an art forum?!(Writing is art).

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

No. It is a fact. Art is about human expression. Take the human out of the equation and you get art that is automatically bad. Or you can take the stance that "its not art" anymore, at which point why are we discussing it on an art forum?!(Writing is art).

You are conflating different concepts: one thing is to discuss what is art, and something else entirely is to have an opinion on the final result from any process (artistic or not). Certainly, current AI models are unable to do any art on their own since they don't possess any agency whatsoever. Leave the chat of any of them open for hours and nothing will happen at all. Unless some human enters the necessary prompts, no generation will happen. And those prompts can be very detailed and intentional, mind you. It is not that easy to get a decent result out of those automatons.

You talk of human expression. Well I'm sure we can agree those prompts are pretty much samples of human expression of the AI user, although given shape by the AI model in some style or other (usually also chosen by the user). So, you have human expression using an automated tool to materialize itself. It may be lazy, it may be stealing from someone else's style or IP, but there is human agency and some degree of expression. Is it art? I suppose it is in a much lesser way than forgers painting in the style of Rembrandt or Picasso. By the way, since years ago there has been some experimentation with machines around the question of "can machines create?". I vaguely remember the case of some robotic arm used to paint in a somewhat artistic way, based probably in some early generative software adapted for that robot.

I do recommend you to read the studies, because you're falling exactly in the human bias detected in the second one. Human intelligence may be rather exceptional (on Earth at least), but intelligence in general is not unique to us (nature really loves to replicate and reuse its stuff!). Also, with the coming of neuromorphic chips and other new computing tech, it may be very well happen that we end up creating the next jump in intelligence in the shape of some sort of synthetic beings (in the second half of this century, maybe?).

 

[Mad Swede]

Hi everyone! I have noticed this discussion titled "the use of AI to sculpt your writing" and I thought it could benefit from having real data about how AI writing is evolving and influencing the publishing industry. I have come across a couple of very recent studies that give us a better perspective of where things seem to be going, at least with current trends:

1. Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for books
   This one is about a study that analyzes the effect of AI-written (partially or totally) books in Amazon's Kindle Unlimited service. In short, the moat for "pure" human writing is thinning and, in general, each book (AI-written or not) makes less money due to the flood of AI-written books. Also, the study explains a particular telltale sign of AI writting, which is about the "abuse" of distinctive "rare language" taken from existing books.

This first study looks ONLY at self-published books.

It's a known fact that those writers who self-publish and who make a living out of it are primarily writers in the Romance genre. Those writers have to produce a new book every 6 to 8 weeks, otherwise readers move on to books by different writers. A number of these writers admit to using stock phrases and descriptions (which, to be fair, is something many pulp writers did in the 1930s) and several admit to considering the use of (or even to using) AI-tools to help them produce new books faster.

This sort of market is also known for the fact that readers are looking for something familiar, which is why they tend to stick with writers who follow fairly conventional plot structures. Those readers are not primarily looking for original writing when buying these books.

I would also point out one key line from the paper: Our results bear directly on the market-effect question at the center of the fair use defense to copyright infringement. Expressed in a different way, what the study authors are saying is that using existing works to train AI-tools may not be fair use if it distorts the market. Which opens up a whole new can of legal worms.

1. Bot or not: Can people tell the difference between stories written by a human or by an AI system?
   This is a study where they make people read short stories (~1000 words) produced either by humans or ChatGPT 4.0 in three different experiments to see how they perceive them, and also if they are able to tell which ones where either written or AI generated. Conclusion, humans are biased against AI although they tend to like their stories more but, at the same time, humans are also very bad at telling if a text is AI generated or not (although some previous experience with AI systems seems to help in detecting AI content).

This second paper is interesting, in that the discussion sections make clear that the study methodology has some weaknesses which may have an impact on the results and their wider applicability. It's also important to note how the study participants were recruited: from a pool of people formed specifically to assist in AI development and related studies. Put another way, there is a degree of self selection amongst the participants and so there is a risk of bias, which isn't mentioned in the paper.

As someone with a research degree I have to say that the conclusion to this paper is not supported by the results, which are significantly more nuanced and .

I recommend reading the articles since they are relatively short, specially if you skip the sections about metodology and research stuff like that. On my part, I'll just leave here my own kind of improvised take on this:

• The studies are just that, studies, not some final nails in humanity's coffin.
• Put together, the studies tell quite a bit about our human biases.
• Curated AI writing may already have the potential to commercially outperform the best AI-free authors out there.
• The first study mentions how AI systems have lowered the cost of production of written fiction, but there is a potential catch to consider. All of those systems have been heavily subsidized, first by Big Tech itself, then by private investors. But the time of their reckoning may be nearing given the financial tensions that are emerging (so much frakking debt in the system!). If there is a crash (or big correction) in the AI sector, that could lead to much higher subscription prices and remove some slop factories from the market. The problem is, like in nature, the strongest of them all will remain and keep on churning product as usual. Even if the monthly cost raises to, let's say, about $2000, if the slop still makes $10000 a month the commercial incentive remains strong.
• I suspect certain publishing houses may consider, if they are not doing it already, using AI to lower their costs and avoid being outcompeted by slop houses. At the same time, could it be that the need for editors and similar staff may go up due to the increase of production? At least to guarantee certain quality levels and avoid embarrassing mistakes. I think I've read something about this but I cannot remember.
• Amazon is already putting up some barriers to the flood of AI slop, but its growth seems unstoppable. Over time, it could very well choke their Kindle Unlimited service and make it worthless.

Hope you find all this informative at least.

Your conclusions here are your own. As a researcher I don't agree with you, not having read the two papers. The results from the studies are so limited and nuanced that about all you can conclude is that more studies are needed.

There is also the question about what sort of writing AI-tools might produce. There is a significant difference between the best literary writing and the sort of writing seen in genres like Romance. Those differences matter, because publishers look for different things when selecting stories for publication, depending on what sort of market they're looking at.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

Thanks for your observations Mad Swede . My summaries of those articles were just to give a rough idea of what is explained in them. Yes, I read about the selection processes in the second study and I understood that were limitations in that regard. Very nice of you pointing out the type of content being churn with AI tools and published in Amazon, unsurprisingly formulaic. Still, the stats provided in the first study are pointing towards a tendency that I'm not sure it would be wise to ignore. Regarding the nuances or issues you point out from the second study, I'll have to trust your judgement although that one also mention previous similar studies that point to the same human biases regarding AI content, which is quite interesting to say the least. And certainly my conclusions are my own! Based on what I read in those studies, plus a few other stuff I've read about authors using AI in different ways.

There is also the question about what sort of writing AI-tools might produce. There is a significant difference between the best literary writing and the sort of writing seen in genres like Romance. Those differences matter, because publishers look for different things when selecting stories for publication, depending on what sort of market they're looking at.

Regarding this, the first study mentions a pattern were those AI-churned books seem to use distinctive "rare language" taken from existing books a lot more than comparable AI-free books. Although maybe is not the just models, but the AI-authors that have developed the preference for such rare expressions because they look good to them.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Not a researcher in this field and I haven't read an AI book. The only AI I use is Deep Dream for my covers. But I do have a couple of thoughts.

First AI as far as I can see from reading You Tube stuff, is godawful! It doesn't just repeat itself constantly, recycling names of planets, ships and people, it also can't count. The number of times it's announced that something was said in two or three simple words, and it's actually five or ten is beyond counting - pun intended.

Second every time I upload a book to the Kindle, there's a section in the process that asks me to declare whether AI was used in the production of the book - writing as well as artwork. It isn't too hard to predict that sooner or later they're going to put labels on books produced using AI.

As a writer personally, I'd stay clear of it (though of course all hail our AI overlords!)

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

psychotick , I'm not sure if you have noticed that you have typed a quite contradictory comment. On one hand you claim to use AI for your covers (big no-no for many readers!), but then you go and, "as a writer", reject the technology. Which is it then?

On the other hand, I don't know which YouTube channels you "read" but I can tell you that recent models are quite powerful (even mathematicians are using them to solve complex problems) and, when used properly, can help in delivering good results. In artistic endeavors, their worth is not in producing the art directly, but in helping the artist refine its craft.

For creative writers, is very helpful to have a tool that can analyze text or enable "conversations" with the world building documentation. From this point of view, writers have finally obtained a tool that can truly help in their craft. I mean, think about an sculptor or a woodworker and all the tools they have at their disposal. Since the invention of writing, writers did not really have an equivalent toolkit to help them in their work (meaning tools that can truly help in working their texts more deeply, something that dictionaries or grammar checks cannot do). Now here you have the LLMs, software that can work with text in a way no other tool is able to (yes, I am aware of previous non-LLM software that was somewhat able to work text, but it wasn't as powerful).

I do not want to come across as "AI-pilled" or something like that, I'm just commenting on the real current capabilities of this tech. And yes, I think there is a correct way of using this "tainted" tech in creative writing that does not involve stealing from other authors (although being inspired by someone else's work is always legitimate), and it goes something like this:

• Use models for analysis or editing, NEVER for producing the final text. Generated creative text is going to be inherently derivative and average, to say the least, even if it looks "flashy" on a first look. Can it inspire you in some way? Yes, but still.
  • Something else is to use the results from spelling or grammar checks, although enter those corrections YOURSELF in your texts.
• Be imperative with the tool. It's just a robot not a person.
• If you are thinking less instead of more with the results of each of your prompts, something is going wrong there. In other words, you must remain actively engaged with the creation process, not just lazily accepting whatever the tool is returning you. Of course, this applies more with harder questions about structure, pacing, dialogues or world building, not so much with spelling or grammar checks.
• To protect your IP, never dump your drafts or documentation to models available on the internet. To work with your texts, only use models you run on your own computer (so, not even services like Grammarly). Yes, this is an expensive issue given the current RAMpocalypse situation, although maybe in a couple of years it might improve somewhat (or earlier if the AI sector eventually crashes or gets "corrected").
  • Do not use just one model, there are several open-weight ones available you can download. It's like assembling your own personal team of experts that answers to your beck and call. Yes, this implies discovering their strengths and weaknesses by trial and error.
  • When you publish your fiction online, you can assume that some AI is going to slurp it eventually. But, that will happen AFTER you have done the publishing, meaning that you can prove ownership of your content. And this is what bothers big publishing houses, proof of IP ownership, not so much that you use an AI model to write.

The current crop of LLM-based models are not the final answer in AI and their progress is expected to plateau sooner than later due to both inherent limitations of LLM algorithms and lack of fresh data to train them on. Still, I think learning how to use properly what we have right now is important because the next evolution of AI, with world models and who knows what else, is expected to be even more advanced and capable. When are going to appear those newer and more advanced models? Don't know, maybe humanity burns to a cinder before that happens! To be clear, I just started very recently to use AI and I'm still trying it out. For now, my experience with it has been kind of a positive mixed bag, mostly because the results you can obtain depend on the precision of your prompts and the capabilities of the model. Anyone curious about how I run models locally, do not hesitate to ask! It is not hard, but you need to know a few things to do it right.

 

[Mad Swede]

I think, Eduardo Ficaria, that we need to clarify a few points here for the benefit of everyone here on Mythic Scribes.

First, even if an author uses an AI-tool as you suggest they will still be using AI to create their story. This means that if Amazon, an agent or a publisher asks if the author concerned has used AI to create the work the answer is "YES".

This is important, because it leads on to the second point. Should the author concerned answer "NO" despite having used the AI-tool(s) in the way you suggest then the author is at the very least in breach of any contract they may have or may obtain with Amazon, the agent or the publisher. (As a parenthesis, I have heard it suggested that in fact the author concerned might also be guilty of fraud.) Should the author get found out the contract will be terminated (my publishers are extremely clear about this, and so are Amazon).

Yes, you are free to use AI-tools as Eduardo Ficaria suggests. But before you do that, make sure you understand the consequences, both for yourself and for your writing.

 

[Karlin]

I want to write. I write. I suppose if Ibwant to " have written " without actually writing, then it might interest me. As it is , what for?

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I want to write. I write. I suppose if Ibwant to " have written " without actually writing, then it might interest me. As it is , what for?

Yeah. What is even the point of using AI to generate garbage for you? If you use it, you aren't writing anymore. You aren't a writer. And I think most of us are writers, here to write.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Eduardo,

Yes I use Deep Dream for covers, because it can do a reasonable (sometimes brilliant) job - provided you study the output closely and are highly selective. Case in point, my cover from about a week ago - Daze of Future Past, looked perfect but had an error in it that I missed - too many bloody fingers! And I completely missed it - which is damned annoying! And yet the cover still looks great, which is why I'm currently tossing up the whole create a completely new cover thing. Feel free to take a look and comment on whether you find the extra fingers thing an issue.

But I would never use an AI for writing a book because 1) I'm the writer, 2) I'm not a digital artist so it doesn't feel like betraying my work by using an AI to create a cover though naturally I make a note in the forward to say that I used the AI for cover creation, and 3) everything I've seen of AI as a text creator has been horribly messed up. Those things I mentioned are only the beginning, it also seems to have major problems keeping a timeline in order, keeping a plot running in a more or less chronological order, and it keeps inventing words for no reason. Meanwhile fixing the errors would require endless editing - more so than actually writing the book.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Long-form AI writing still sucks, and if at some point it gets great, people will just sit around saying, "AI, write me a book to read that is just my type" and won't be bothering to buy anything. Until then, and maybe even after, we write, because that's what we do.

Formulaic romance, the easiest for AI to write, might be the first genre to die. Hell, maybe I'm an optimist after all!

 

[skip.knox]

The phrase "use AI" begs for clarification. The easy part is, Human fed one or more prompts into an AI engine with the express intent of getting back a complete story. Look back through this and related threads and you'll see that is how the phrase most often gets used, especially by those who condemn it root and branch.

To give some other fairly easy examples, Human used AI to brainstorm. Human fed it a few terms or maybe an idea or two with the express intent of getting back an outline or beat sheets or plot summaries with which Human could go on to do the actual writing (that phrase here meaning, the writing that appears in the published book). For another example, Human wrote a full (or mostly full) draft, but it's messy and doesn't feel coherent and Human can see lots of problems. Human simply doesn't know how to fix them all, but the Human can feed the entire document to AI with the instruction to "improve" the draft.

With these examples, it's not so clear-cut as the first, not because it's ambiguous but because there's a range of usage here, ranging from a single sentence to entire chapters to the whole story. I'm sure there are those out there (not here!?) who might say just getting a paragraph reworked is ethically acceptable but doing the same for a whole story is not. We humans love our shades of gray.

For a final example (I've put this forward on other messages), we "use AI" pretty much every day. To one degree or another (and the degrees keep going up) AI underpins our writing tools, editing, publishing, formatting, art, production, and promotion. Here again I can see any one individual saying using it *here* is okay but using it *there* is not, and that the answers will vary widely from one individual to the next.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Might as well have fun before they become Terminators and kill us all.

I'm using AI to build an iPhone app companion for Sundering the Gods.

The phrase "use AI" begs for clarification. The easy part is, Human fed one or more prompts into an AI engine with the express intent of getting back a complete story. Look back through this and related threads and you'll see that is how the phrase most often gets used, especially by those who condemn it root and branch.

To give some other fairly easy examples, Human used AI to brainstorm. Human fed it a few terms or maybe an idea or two with the express intent of getting back an outline or beat sheets or plot summaries with which Human could go on to do the actual writing (that phrase here meaning, the writing that appears in the published book). For another example, Human wrote a full (or mostly full) draft, but it's messy and doesn't feel coherent and Human can see lots of problems. Human simply doesn't know how to fix them all, but the Human can feed the entire document to AI with the instruction to "improve" the draft.

With these examples, it's not so clear-cut as the first, not because it's ambiguous but because there's a range of usage here, ranging from a single sentence to entire chapters to the whole story. I'm sure there are those out there (not here!?) who might say just getting a paragraph reworked is ethically acceptable but doing the same for a whole story is not. We humans love our shades of gray.

For a final example (I've put this forward on other messages), we "use AI" pretty much every day. To one degree or another (and the degrees keep going up) AI underpins our writing tools, editing, publishing, formatting, art, production, and promotion. Here again I can see any one individual saying using it *here* is okay but using it *there* is not, and that the answers will vary widely from one individual to the next.

 

[Eduardo Ficaria]

The rules in Amazon KDP are more nuanced than what you describe Mad Swede . Below I copy their current official Content Guidelines about AI content, highlights are mine:

Artificial intelligence (AI) content (text, images, or translations)
We require you to inform us of AI-generated content (text, images, or translations) when you publish a new book or make edits to and republish an existing book through KDP. AI-generated images include cover and interior images and artwork. You are not required to disclose AI-assisted content. We distinguish between AI-generated and AI-assisted content as follows:

• AI-generated: We define AI-generated content as text, images, or translations created by an AI-based tool. If you used an AI-based tool to create the actual content (whether text, images, or translations), it is considered "AI-generated," even if you applied substantial edits afterwards.
• AI-assisted: If you created the content yourself, and used AI-based tools to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve that content (whether text or images), then it is considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” Similarly, if you used an AI-based tool to brainstorm and generate ideas, but ultimately created the text or images yourself, this is also considered "AI-assisted" and not “AI-generated.” It is not necessary to inform us of the use of such tools or processes.

You are responsible for verifying that all AI-generated and/or AI-assisted content adheres to all content guidelines, including by complying with all applicable intellectual property rights.

Hence, someone using AI as I suggested in my previous post is not in breach of any contract with Amazon. On the contrary, you are pretty much welcome to use AI as an assistant tool. I've also checked the rules in Kobo's Writing Life and Google Play Books, but they do not have any explicit rules like Amazon. Still, in the case of Kobo, they are applying some "machine-learning" detection tools as a method to contain the flood of slop and pirated content. The problem is that those tools are not really able to tell apart human writing from AI-generated one and, according to this article on Substack, they may never be able to do so. Worse, they can punish very well written prose due to it being "too good". Imagine, someone writing good prose like, let's say, Ursula K. Leguin, could be rejected!

Just to make myself clear on this matter Karlin hunterjwizzard , I do not endorse the cadre of AI authors that dump whatever stuff comes out of an AI chatbot, no matter how curated it is. But I recognize the value of the capabilities AI software has in assisting with the writing process in general, and also to help in the production of fiction. Think that these tools enable you to "talk" to your worldbuilding, or have the AI check your fiction to detect if there are details that do not fit or even contradict it.

I understand your point of view psychotick , but right now there are readers (don't know how many, but I suspect they are plenty) rejecting books with AI covers because they make the simple assumption that, if the cover is AI-generated, the content will also be AI-generated. It is some sort of natural protection mechanism against slop, and also picking a side in favor of the illustrator whose work has been gobbled up without permission in the training of those models. I have not found the cover you mention, but another one with a pink octopus which, well, cannot hide the fact that it was AI generated.

Demesnedenoir I do not think that, even if some future AI tech is able to produce good long-form fiction, people are going to generate it just like that. We humans like stories we do not know about beforehand, we like to be surprised in that regard. If you are the one entering the prompt, then you probably already know how the story goes and you will not really be surprised about it. Also, let's not forget that AI "writes" based on what humans have already created, it cannot really imagine anything. In this regard, it is more like a collage machine able to blend existing parts with each another really well (with a good set of prompts at least). Yeah, the first ones you tell it to generate may look nice and interesting but, eventually, it will repeat itself (although of course we could argue that this also happens with human authors).

Regarding the "formulaic" contents, it is important to think that, when people complain about AI slop tend to forget where that slop originally comes from. From us! The AI is just an automaton able to churn much more slop product dirt cheap, which is something that excites big corps quite a bit. The worse part of this is, of course, how certain audiences are just eating it up (think short-form videos on those anti-social platforms that I will mention not here).

App development is certainly a good use for AI, although you need to check the code it produces. Otherwise, you risk ending up with something you cannot maintain on the long term (and you will need to do maintenance on that app!). On my part, I've used it to help me in fixing issues in my (still in-construction) website. Sometimes it did not gave me the correct answer, maybe because I did not provide the right prompt, but it has helped me in that regard. By the way, the terminators are already here, just take a look at all the robots or drones hunting humans in Ukraine right now. And missiles or ICBMs are also killer robots which have been around for many decades now.

Entering good prompts is not that easy skip.knox , it may look like that but in reality is rather tricky. You need certain expertise to know what to ask with precision and then to analyse and understand the results returned by the AI tool. I mean, when using an AI, specially a powerful one, you are facing the problem of the genie of the lamp. The requesting side, the human, must be careful not just of the "what", but also of the "how". The granting side, the genie, does not share the same context nor understanding of reality (and AIs do not know reality at all!), hence the issues with wishes and their consequences. On the other hand, yeah, humans have been using algorithms for a long time now. I mean, up till now software has been made up of just deterministic algorithms running within other deterministic algorithms, and AI is also software but non-deterministic which gives it its "powers". Regarding the uses for AI, those are certainly many since is such a malleable tool. Still, I personally do not see value in asking an AI for creative content like drafts, because the draft and similar creative contents are precisely the "randomizing seed numbers" that a human should enter to an AI to start a brainstorming or editing process. And yes, each person has its own opinion of how deep to go in the usage of this new tool or other ones. Just think how Socrates rejected writing because he thought it would degrade people's memory skills, and how wrong he was on that matter!

 

[Mad Swede]

The rules in Amazon KDP are more nuanced than what you describe Mad Swede . Below I copy their current official Content Guidelines about AI content, highlights are mine:



Hence, someone using AI as I suggested in my previous post is not in breach of any contract with Amazon. On the contrary, you are pretty much welcome to use AI as an assistant tool. I've also checked the rules in Kobo's Writing Life and Google Play Books, but they do not have any explicit rules like Amazon.

Amazon may permit the use of AI-assistance, but the onus is on you as the author to prove that you have only used AI-assistance. All it takes is a few accusations or even some suspicion against you and Amazon will terminate your account. After that you get to prove that you are innocent of the accusation so that Amazon will let you back on - this is also in Amazon's terms and conditions. I suggest that it isn't worth the risk for anyone wanting to be seen as a serious writer.

Still, in the case of Kobo, they are applying some "machine-learning" detection tools as a method to contain the flood of slop and pirated content. The problem is that those tools are not really able to tell apart human writing from AI-generated one and, according to this article on Substack, they may never be able to do so. Worse, they can punish very well written prose due to it being "too good". Imagine, someone writing good prose like, let's say, Ursula K. Leguin, could be rejected!

First, an article on Substack is not proof of anything. It's just another magazine article, it is not a peer-reviewed paper in a good scientific journal. I would also point out an assumption that is being made in that article, that LLMs are designed to eliminate the differences between human and AI-tool texts. Are they? Second, the statistical analyses in that article assume the the probability distributions for AI-generated and human written texts are converging, and that they will soon reach the point where they are so similar as to be the same. But that is not backed up anywhere with a reference to some suitable research. So it remains an assertion.

This is not to write that AI-detection tools always work, nor is it to say that they cannot work. Reality is far more complex than that and my differ depending on what langauge you are reading and writing in.

As a writer you must remember that if you submit some written work to a magazine or a book publisher they are the ones who decide whether it get published or not. If they have a no-AI rule and decide you've used AI-tools to help then you will get a form rejection. They won't bother to explain.

Just to make myself clear on this matter Karlin hunterjwizzard , I do not endorse the cadre of AI authors that dump whatever stuff comes out of an AI chatbot, no matter how curated it is. But I recognize the value of the capabilities AI software has in assisting with the writing process in general, and also to help in the production of fiction. Think that these tools enable you to "talk" to your worldbuilding, or have the AI check your fiction to detect if there are details that do not fit or even contradict it.

Surely you as the author should know this already? When does the use of an AI-tool in this way stop being a form of assistance and move into being a form of drafting tool? I'm not sure that you can draw a line in the sand like that. Which is why I would never use any form of AI-assistance.

I understand your point of view psychotick , but right now there are readers (don't know how many, but I suspect they are plenty) rejecting books with AI covers because they make the simple assumption that, if the cover is AI-generated, the content will also be AI-generated. It is some sort of natural protection mechanism against slop, and also picking a side in favor of the illustrator whose work has been gobbled up without permission in the training of those models. I have not found the cover you mention, but another one with a pink octopus which, well, cannot hide the fact that it was AI generated.

Demesnedenoir I do not think that, even if some future AI tech is able to produce good long-form fiction, people are going to generate it just like that. We humans like stories we do not know about beforehand, we like to be surprised in that regard. If you are the one entering the prompt, then you probably already know how the story goes and you will not really be surprised about it. Also, let's not forget that AI "writes" based on what humans have already created, it cannot really imagine anything. In this regard, it is more like a collage machine able to blend existing parts with each another really well (with a good set of prompts at least). Yeah, the first ones you tell it to generate may look nice and interesting but, eventually, it will repeat itself (although of course we could argue that this also happens with human authors).

Regarding the "formulaic" contents, it is important to think that, when people complain about AI slop tend to forget where that slop originally comes from. From us! The AI is just an automaton able to churn much more slop product dirt cheap, which is something that excites big corps quite a bit. The worse part of this is, of course, how certain audiences are just eating it up (think short-form videos on those anti-social platforms that I will mention not here).

That is not quite true. LLMs are are combination of pattern recognition tools (which is what is meant by "training" the models) and pattern generation tools (which is how the LLMs produce text or graphics). The problem with this is that sometimes the patterns derived by the LLMs are over-simplified (or even faulty) and so what is produced becomes very repetitive - the so-called slop. Pattern recognition is not quite as simple as some would have you believe and there are mathematical limits on ow good that recognition can be. Which means that there are also limits on the patterns (of text and graphics) that can be derived by the LLM.