the use of AI to sculpt your writing

[Queshire]

My primary concern is a matter of practicality more than anything else. It's hard enough to break into creative industries as is without having to compete with AI. Even in just fan circles AI assisted work bloats the number you have to compete with.

 

[Mad Swede]

Speaking of nuance, AI is not actually doing the stealing. Corporations operated by human beings are doing the stealing. It would be entirely possible for the corporations running AI to have taken the time to contact each and every author and had the morality to pay ... *snort* *guffaw* .... hang on a second. Oh never mind.

By blaming AI rather than the money-hungry humans, we focus our outrage on the wrong target. On a target which in truth cannot be hit. But the corporations can, at least in theory. The populist movement against data centers is a good example of painting the correct target. Maybe, with enough pressure, we humans can find a way to generate AI tools without trashing the environment. Or maybe we all just scale back. And yes, I understand that shot is astronomically long. But if one wishes to stop the thief, it is necessary to identify the correct thief.

OK, wearing my hat as a retired military police officer.

Yes, those companies who have created those AI-tools in the form of Large Language Models have in many cases stolen other peoples intellectual property to build databases with which to develop and "train" the models. Yes, those who did this should be up in court and their companies should be reaching deep into their pockets to compensate the victims.

But, when you use those same AI-tools to make something you are commissioning another crime, possibly several. You may well be handling stolen property as well as aiding and abetting theft, and you might even be stealing. All this is because those AI-tools take your prompt and then search through those same databases (full of stolen intellectual property) to make whatever it is you wanted. And the AI-tools do it at your instruction.

And before anyone comes with the argument "I didn't know", that is not generally a defence in law (ignorantia juris non excusat, as they say in Latin), because it is your responsibility to find out - and given the publicity around AI-tools and their development you don't have an excuse for not knowing.

So no, you don't get a free pass from me as a mere "user" of an AI-tool.

We can stop the use of AI-tools and the associated theft of intellectual property by not using those same tools.

Or we can use the AI-tools and make fair payments to those who created the intellectual properties that the AI-tools use to make whatever you want. Which means that you, the user of the AI-tool, should be paying for it. Probably quite a lot given the volumes of data we are talking about.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

It's hard enough to break into creative industries as is without having to compete with AI. Even in just fan circles AI assisted work bloats the number you have to compete with.

That's why we all need to take a firm stance: No AI in creative spaces. Period.

If there's enough community backlash people will stop. If enough people get screamed off of story website for using AI-generated garbage, the behavior will stop.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm not looking for a free pass. I'm trying to be clear about what historically is happening here. This is a fundamental shift, on a par with steam or electricity. It's axiomatic that this process will be destructive in many ways and that it will be driven by people indifferent to consequences (other than profit and fame). The moral judgment still doesn't go very far towards understanding.

>We can stop the use of AI-tools and the associated theft of intellectual property by not using those same tools.
I disagree with this. AI is being used in research, data analysis, prediction, design. It has quickly become embedded in a hundred different systems that we all use, from finance to communication to transportation. All artists everywhere could suddenly stop using AI tools directly, not a single prompt issued henceforth, and the AI juggernaut would scarcely be deflected, much less stopped.

>Or we can use the AI-tools and make fair payments
Yeah, sure. That's what I said, too. I also said it ain't likely to happen. The people at the center of this are not in the least interested in fair payments.

I don't use AI in my writing, at least not in the form of having it write anything. I've played around with it just to see what the fuss was about, but I'm too busy writing to invest the time. That said, if I were to use AI to analyze an astronomical photo, it's not entirely clear who ought to be paid. I'm pretty sure it isn't authors. Also that said, I'd be a fool to so use AI because it's prone to hallucinations, seeing false shapes. My son is an amateur astronomer, so the example comes readily to mind.

To choose another example, AI is used in expediting health insurance claims. So, ought I not be insured? Not file a claim? Not get sick? And who ought to be paid for the use of AI in that industry? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.

AI is here and is far, far bigger than the writing of novels. We can't solve those larger issues, save as citizens, same as we have to tackle other mammoth problems. To return just to our own sphere, I think one area of action is in suing those corporations for theft of intellectual property. There's where the publishing houses ought to stand up (and I think some are). Independent authors can become signatories to class action suits. Our words ought to be handled like private information is (theoretically) handled: the corporations can use them only if the author explicitly allows it and is compensated for the use. The corporations will do that only when they're hit hard enough, and even then they might decide it's easier just to conduct business as usual and pay the fines.

 

[pmmg]

If there's enough community backlash people will stop. If enough people get screamed off of story website for using AI-generated garbage, the behavior will stop.

Personally, I think this one is already released. There will be no putting the evil spirits back in the box.

But I will hold fast, if you want to be a writer, be a writer. If AI is doing it for you, then you are not what you say you are. I would agree to a different term for it, but I don't think that is coming either.

The choices I make, and the shortcuts I take, are about my characters, and who I am. And its about who you are. AI makes you not matter. I want you to matter.

All I can leave off with is, make your own choices, own what it makes you.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

But I will hold fast, if you want to be a writer, be a writer. If AI is doing it for you, then you are not what you say you are. I would agree to a different term for it, but I don't think that is coming either.

I agree with you 1,000% and do not use any AI myself.

I' am also now demanding "NO AI" disclaimers on any media I consume. If a new show or movie comes out, I won't watch it without said disclaimer. Its not just a question of refusing to use that crap myself. If someone else used it I don't want what they made with it.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm not looking for a free pass. I'm trying to be clear about what historically is happening here. This is a fundamental shift, on a par with steam or electricity. It's axiomatic that this process will be destructive in many ways and that it will be driven by people indifferent to consequences (other than profit and fame). The moral judgment still doesn't go very far towards understanding.

>We can stop the use of AI-tools and the associated theft of intellectual property by not using those same tools.
I disagree with this. AI is being used in research, data analysis, prediction, design. It has quickly become embedded in a hundred different systems that we all use, from finance to communication to transportation. All artists everywhere could suddenly stop using AI tools directly, not a single prompt issued henceforth, and the AI juggernaut would scarcely be deflected, much less stopped.

>Or we can use the AI-tools and make fair payments
Yeah, sure. That's what I said, too. I also said it ain't likely to happen. The people at the center of this are not in the least interested in fair payments.

I don't use AI in my writing, at least not in the form of having it write anything. I've played around with it just to see what the fuss was about, but I'm too busy writing to invest the time. That said, if I were to use AI to analyze an astronomical photo, it's not entirely clear who ought to be paid. I'm pretty sure it isn't authors. Also that said, I'd be a fool to so use AI because it's prone to hallucinations, seeing false shapes. My son is an amateur astronomer, so the example comes readily to mind.

To choose another example, AI is used in expediting health insurance claims. So, ought I not be insured? Not file a claim? Not get sick? And who ought to be paid for the use of AI in that industry? Yes, those are rhetorical questions.

AI is here and is far, far bigger than the writing of novels. We can't solve those larger issues, save as citizens, same as we have to tackle other mammoth problems. To return just to our own sphere, I think one area of action is in suing those corporations for theft of intellectual property. There's where the publishing houses ought to stand up (and I think some are). Independent authors can become signatories to class action suits. Our words ought to be handled like private information is (theoretically) handled: the corporations can use them only if the author explicitly allows it and is compensated for the use. The corporations will do that only when they're hit hard enough, and even then they might decide it's easier just to conduct business as usual and pay the fines.

Where do I begin?

I've spent the last few years in the transport business, and one of things many companies are looking at is the use of so-called AI-tools to make processes and analyses more efficient. But we're not there yet, and that is for several reasons.

One major issue is data ownership. As a commercial company we (and all the others) are liable for damages if we're found to have used other companies proprietary data without permission. Getting this wrong could end up bankrupting the company and/or seeing staff criminally convicted. So the first thing we have to do is tag the data we have, both to mark what is ours (so that out tools can use it), to mark other companies proprietary data (so this doesn't get used), to mark personal data (GDPR applies over here) and to mark sensitive data (which might be defence or commercially sensitive), all to ensure sensitive data doesn't by mistake end up in some publicity shot or other information we send out to customers. Tagging data like that is a huge exercise, and it takes time and resources. It is also something we have to do continuously.

Then there is the matter of data protection. We don't want other companies AI scraping tools to find or take our data, and we don't want everyone within the company to have access to all data via some AI-tool (and trust me, this has happened in other companies here in Sweden). So all the IT-systems must be assessed and where needed updated and segmented to give the required levels of data protection. It means thinking about what we put on out public-facing website. It all takes time to implement and it costs money. It also has to be re-assessed regularly to take account of developments in IT-systems.

Then there are the results you get from these tools. Someone has to check them, mostly to make sure the results are correct (you'd be amazed what some of these tools produce and how wrong it can be) and also to make sure things are written in our companies style. Sure, you can do things like get an AI-tool to take notes from a meeting, but the output has to be checked because the tool doesn't know what you mean when you say something like "Chatham House rules apply to this next bit" and keeps on taking notes.

All this takes time, money and experienced staff. The idea that these AI-tools are going to make things faster and more efficient is in my experience wildly optimistic. Maybe in a few years time, but then again maybe not...

Tech leaders say AI means less work - their staff say they work up to 90 hours a week

Finally, as a consumer you should be worried about AI-tools being used for things like claims checking. Do you know if anyone checked the decision the tool made? It's only a matter of time before a faulty handling of a claim (or something else) by an AI-tool leads to a major and very expensive lawsuit. And you the consumer will indirectly end up paying the costs of that.

Yes, AI-tools may end up being a fundamental advance for us all. But for this to happen in a good way the whole process needs to be controlled, and not by those interested only in making money.

 

[AlexS]

i never wrote anything in my life and English is my third language, for a long time i was obsessed with an indie game's lore and i wanted to write my own fanfiction
and like i said i have zero writing experience, so i gave Claude my braindump and it looked good for me, it didn't change anything i gave it and didn't add anything, all it did was fix what i gave it and used better vocabulary. i also love the way it paints the picture that i roughly described.
now my story is actually expanding further than i anticipated, at some point it stopped being fanfiction and its now its own thing
at first i didn't feel like a fraud bc it was fanfiction but now that my story is expanding i kind of feel like one

Cool, glad you're happy with the results, let's just acknowledge the fact it's not your writing anymore.

 

[skip.knox]

Mad Swede I'm not real optimistic about AI being an advance. Just fundamental change. I agree, too, that AI tech should be controlled, probably by governments in the same way they oversee other critical national resources. (though, AI may well prove to be the first world resource, making nonsense of national boundaries)

I also know for certain that AI can make serious mistakes that cost businesses millions (and that's just so far). But I also know it's simply ubiquitous. I just listened to a radio program about AI in a Pringles factory. I'm not sure to whom the company ought to be beholden for the AI help on the factory floor. The report said the company reports improvements, but also that they spent a bucket of money making the changeover. Companies are going to start using AI tools simply because their competition is, and for no better reason. Some will lose money by it. However it goes, big tech will profit.

As for writing, I do foresee a time when writers won't even know if the tools they use are AI driven or not, especially in doing research. Even the search results will be AI to one degree or another. The writing tools will be churning away under the hood even as the author thinks they're just typing. Then it's just another step to man-machine melding. The SF crowd will be soooo happy. <g>

At the other end, the rigorous purist will write with pen and paper, retain a scribe to make copies, and distribute it by hand.

Oooh, here's another thought. What will it mean when AI begins to intrude at the *reader* end? The item that comes to mind first is language translation. At the far end of that, every reader will have their own slightly different version of the text, none of which quite align with the authorial original (in its several forms).

It's a good thing I write mainly because I can't stop.

 

[pmmg]

Ai will probably annihilate us all in a giant drone attack. So it wont be our problem.