• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

We learn what we do

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I'm seeing more and more people saying that they use AI in one form or another in their writing. Sometimes the rhetoric is unapologetic and matter-of-fact, while elsewhere I see people hesitate, trying to limit the role; e.g., I only use it for outlining, or only for editing, and so on. I view all this as inevitable and (as a historian) interesting, but I do try to keep an eye out for places where it's clearly inimical or beneficial.

So, here's an example.

When we write the usual way (aka, the right way <g>), we undertake a wide range of activities: research, daydreaming, proofreading, brainstorming, composition, editing ... I'll stop there, as the list is long enough to frighten off the young'uns. Y'all get the point.

But consider the earnest, AI-assisted author. Not the ones who are blatantly lazy, chasing the quick buck, but the ones who view the various AI capabilities as simply tools there for use. So they use it. They use--let's get to a specific instance--AI for drafting. They have a bunch of ideas, some scenes sketched, but (they will say) they're just no dang good at writing scenes that are exciting.

So, they use the AI and it actually works pretty well. Well enough to meet their needs, at least. They get that draft, they make their own changes, turning it into their own, or at least something they are content to view as their own. It takes a good deal of work, as crafting AI prompts is somewhere between an art and a science, but ever a labor.

They get the book completed (good on ya) and are ready for the next one. And guess what? They're still no dang good at writing scenes that are exciting. This time the AI part goes more smoothly because they've learned a bunch about how to craft prompts to get the desired results. They make another book and another.

And now, they've become proficient, not at writing stories, but at using AI.

That is the caution I offer to aspiring writers. You are denying yourself the opportunity to learn, to gain a craft that is entirely you. It doesn't matter at what stage you employ that AI. At every stage, you are losing the opportunity to learn how to do better at research, at editing, at composition, and the whole wretched, wrenching business of writing.

There are plenty of other aspects of all this where we can critique AI in creative writing, or defend and praise it. Or even just study it. But for myself, I have not seen anyone talk about the implications for the writer themselves, as an artist. Creating a story and seeing it out the door is profoundly gratifying. It seems a shame to lessen that gratification. It's like going to another country but you spend part of your time watching a slide show of the place. You can claim you "saw" more of that country, but you'll never know what you missed.
 

ThinkerX

Myth Weaver
I had to kill another Grammarly feature because it kept making unwanted suggestions. Spell check - fine. Grammar check - fine. The rest - No. I note that some of Grammarly's grammar solutions actually create grammar problems.

That said, I am still running Windows 10 because my ancient beast wasn't rated for the upgrade. (I did get the security thing, though.) I am kind of glad for this situation, as rumor has it that Windows 11 is all about linking little computers together to make an AI.
 
This reminds me of learning maths at school. When I was in high school (end of the 90's), I could only use a calculator in math classes to do actual calculations, and pretty much only when they were too hard to do in my head. When my niece and nephew who are something like 5-10 years younger them me where in high school, part of the math lesson was with fancy graphical calculators, and the lesson basically came down to enter the formula into the calculator, press these four buttons and you have your result.

To me there's no point in that maths lesson (though I might just be old and grumpy...). The computer part is the easy part. Anyone who knows maths and needs to use it can learn how to use that calculator in an hour or less. However, if you only learn how to use the calculator, then you are stuck when the calculator changes or stops working or you need something slightly different than the sequence of buttons you were taught.

I guess it comes down to where you think we stand on the AI curve. If we're at the beginning, and the biggest improvements are still ahead of us, then not learning how to write using AI is like sticking to breeding horses or being a farm worker in the 1800's. Your job will disappear and become a hobby thing. Something people gaze at in wonder at renaissance fairs.

In this instance, it doesn't matter that you only learn how to create AI prompts and edit them. The crafting of the scene is done to a great extent by the AI and you have no need to know how to write it. It would be like saying we no longer know how to operate a telephone switch board. That's true, but simply because there's no longer a need for it.

If however we are already past the big growth stage for generative AI and LLM, then what we have now is roughly as good as it gets. There will still be improvements, but they will be itterative and not transformative. And it's a useful tool for aiding a writer (or programmer or whatever), but it's not going to replace the actual human doing the work.

I'm personally in the latter camp. At least as far as LLM go. We've already fed them everything we've ever written as a human species. There's no more data, and more and more of what they ingest is actually made by other LLM's. Which, if anything, runs the risk of decreasing their quality, not increasing it.

The issue Skip mentions, that you don't learn how to craft a great scene by using an LLM is the same issue that model faces. Namely, there's no clear right or wrong in what it generates. I can't simply teach it by using output as input or by judging what it created. They're different then an image generator in that regard. If I ask AI to draw an apple, I can easily judge the outcome and tell it it's right or wrong. With a chapter or a novel, that's a lot harder to do. Just ask a regular person in the street why they liked or disliked a specific novel, and they'll have a hard time articulating that.

Note that the same issue also goes with bigger drawings. An AI can draw a great apple. However, large compositions that are amazing are hard to generate in one go. Which is why those are usually created in pieces and still assembled by people.

I do believe that AI will enter the workflow of many writers and editors. Some tasks are faster and better done by AI. Spell checking is an obvious one. Skip's experiments with editing is another example where it can aid writers. As is brainstorming. AI can spit out random ideas at a pace that can't be matched by a person, and it's at the point where you can discuss stuff with it and deepen ideas. Same with polishing blurbs or marketing copy.

And I think that it will write novels for all those people out there who say they want to one day write a novel. It always feels like half the people I tell I've written a bunch of novels tell me they one day want to write one too. With AI now they can. It won't be a great novel. But it will be theirs, and they can hold it in their hands and show people and get a few ooohs and aaahs and then move on with their lives.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
>At least as far as LLM go. We've already fed them everything we've ever written as a human species. There's no more data, and more and more of what they ingest is actually made by other LLM's.

I believe this overlooks the possibility that the tools that use those LLMs can continue to improve.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
>And I think that it will write novels for all those people out there who say they want to one day write a novel. It always feels like half the people I tell I've written a bunch of novels tell me they one day want to write one too. With AI now they can. It won't be a great novel. But it will be theirs, and they can hold it in their hands and show people and get a few ooohs and aaahs and then move on with their lives.

Truly. And this can be hardly different from people who wish they could draw using Photoshop or, nowadays, AI generating tools. They can wind up with a book cover or whatever (I refrain from elaborating on 'whatever'), and if they do enough they might even call themselves an artist. And an actual book cover artist has lost a job, but that one probably used stock photography then used Photoshop to jimmy the thing into an acceptable book cover, unlike the actual illustrator, who lost their job to the stock artist. And yet, painters persist.

Authors will too. Not because of fame and fortune but because of obsession and compulsion. I like better the latter motives anyway.
 
Top