Got told AI did a better job than me.

[pmmg]

Which I think is Philip K. Dick's entire point. Love it. <3

A movie that really did this for me is Ex Machina. Its been out for a while so ppl have probably seen. But as it went on i started to question all of it. Who was a robot and who wasnt. I wish i could have that experience a second time but alas…. Ive seen it.

 

[skip.knox]

I recently submitted the bulk of a novel into Sudowrite (which uses a whole menu of LLMs) and basically asked whaddyathink? Most of critiquing was pedestrian enough, but there were a couple of surprising angles. For example, it saw a theme that I had not.

Which raises interesting questions in itself. A theme in a novel is a very abstract sort of thing. There are endless examples of Reader A seeing this them, while Reader B sees something else, and Reader C doesn't see a theme at all. At most, we can say that with some stories, the great majority of readers agree that this or that theme exists in the story.

The first interesting question is, what exactly did the AI notice? Recurrence, I suppose, is enough for now. There are probably layers and angles to ... oh I guess I'll call it Artificial Insight.

Now, the thing is, I take the AI's point. That really is a theme (I'm playing coy, not being specific) within my story. Plain as day, now that I've awakened. Now I start to look for opportunities to paint with that brush. I do believe it will add some nuance to the story.

Would an editor have noticed the same, since I'm claiming the theme objectively exists in the text. Unintended symmetry I suppose. Anyway, I think it would be much as with readers. One editor would say hey look at this, while another might not say a word about that theme, and yet another would perhaps suggest the theme is trite or unwanted. At that point, it's hard to prefer (on this one specific matter!) the human editor to the AI feedback.

Finally, as I add a sentence here or change a simile there, is that use inherently inferior or objectionable because I "used" AI? I am unable to see much difference between me being influenced by AI feedback and being influenced by an editor's suggestion or, indeed, my having read several books and by subconscious mysterious processes come to the same conclusion myself, happy in the illusion that I've been clever.

Gotta say, I'm loving the discussion as much as the tech.

 

[pmmg]

Finally, as I add a sentence here or change a simile there, is that use inherently inferior or objectionable because I "used" AI?

Yes.

 

[Ned Marcus]

Finally, as I add a sentence here or change a simile there, is that use inherently inferior or objectionable because I "used" AI? I am unable to see much difference between me being influenced by AI feedback and being influenced by an editor's suggestion or, indeed, my having read several books and by subconscious mysterious processes come to the same conclusion myself, happy in the illusion that I've been clever.

I don't understand the hostility towards using AI for things like editing. A good human editor or reader is better than AI, but AI is better than a mediocre critique group member or beta reader. AI is useful, why not use it?