Personally I'm not a fan of the kind of AI which 'creates' new art. I don't think it does - it uses combinations of work which already exists and repackages it.
Saturday 31 August 2024
AI - how does it impact writers?
Personally I'm not a fan of the kind of AI which 'creates' new art. I don't think it does - it uses combinations of work which already exists and repackages it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I'm afraid I just don't know enough about AI to fully comprehend the issues. I mean what's to stop a magazine generating their own stories & eliminating most of their authors? Personally I would never buy or read an AI generated novel or a magazine of short stories but that's if I knew. There was a bit of a controversy here last year when a well respected national newspaper unwittingly published a long article complete with photos of the 'author'. I read the article before it was removed from the website & there were no obvious indication that it wasn't genuine.
I don't really know much about it, either. I hope that what stops a mag from filling their publication with AI material is a sense of integrity and a feeling that they don't want to cheat the reader. If you think about it, an entire magazine could very easily be produced by AI and there'd be no need for any staff. But would that benefit the publishing industry in the long term ? I reckon sales would dramatically drop, due to a severe lack of quality, and the publisher would lose that title. Would readers warm to Al publications? I don't think so.
This is another of those, 'don't get me started' things 😠. What concerns me is the implied acceptance, the default to 'it's okay'. A related but different aspect is the default that 'everything' goes on the internet, from articles you might write for magazines to planning application letters. I have just filled in my ALCS questionnaire on the use of AI. I am guessing they might have a lot of material!
I’m very unclear how it all works, and I assumed it would be possible to tell if a story was AI-generated, but I understand from some people I’ve spoken to that I might be wrong about that. So, like Sheelagh, I would never want to read a story or book that was written by AI - if I knew! I’ve seen that competitions now specifically say not by AI, but I am very concerned that they might start to slip through.
I've also completed the ALCS survey on AI. Although I find it hard to believe that AI is yet able to challenge human levels of creativity, I have a deep fear that one day it will be able to. And I wish I knew what we could do to prevent it from reaching this point.
The important distinction is between generative and non-generative AI. The former is the one that needs to be regulated, but like any new thing, once it's out in the world, we are going to be five steps behind.
Not familiar enough with AI. I did post at the IWSG linking to multiple sites that talked about AI so hopefully there was some helpful stuff there.
One thing I worry about is publishers using our stories to train AI, so it can generate similar stories at no cost. This has happened in academic publishing, and, as we know, Meta discussed buying Simon & Schuster last year in order to gain access to books on which to train their AI. Given the state of magazine publishing at the moment, it's not out of the question that the publishers wouldn't use our stories to train AI, or that they might end up having to sell the business to a company with this intention.
Difficult times to be a writer - or any creative artist.
Liz
I really don’t know much about AI, but I do know a lot about the pleasure of reading and feel there is something really special about a piece of fiction that someone has written. For me there is a connection with the author especially where there’s an emotion/response/something said where I think yes, that’s exactly it. I don’t want to invest my time in reading something that is artificially created so really hope that if AI is used publishers have to be upfront about it so I can choose.
It might be a difficult time to be a full-time womag fiction writer or creative artist, Liz but I don't think the womag market is wide enough for anyone to make a decent, good living from it. I know several years ago, one womag writer was able to sell over 80 stories in a year but that's just not possible now, as a lot of mags have ceased production.
When my eldest son tried to tell me some time ago that 'AI will take all our jobs', I dismissed it as part of his tendency to predict doom and disaster. However, now I'm not so sure. I cannot imagine ever choosing to read a short story, poem or novel that had been written by AI, because it would lack the authentic human experience that seems to me to be the whole point of art/creativity. But does everyone feel the same? My mum devours thrillers, and would happily concede that much of what she reads is kind of 'throwaway'; I don't think she would mind if these books were AI-written. She also enjoys a more memorable read, when in the mood, and then, I think, only a human-authored book would do. This makes me wonder if we might be on the brink of a two-tier future, regarding reading material - will there be AI stories for certain appetites and budgets, but also the continuation of genuine, original literature, created by real people? It would be very interesting to hear whether womag readers especially value the human touch in their fiction, or whether they would be satisfied with stories produced by AI, if the quality was good - surely this will determine how publishers proceed. Might it be a profitable selling point for certain magazines to be able to label their fiction as written by human authors? I hope so. If magazine sales are in decline, it is understandable that publishers seek ways to cut production costs, but if readers are as discerning as I think they are, perhaps AI fiction is not the way to go.
But, at the moment, the fiction produced by AI is not of a good enough standard. It's actually laughable. Your mum might object to an AI book if it was rubbish quality. Most short story competitions and fiction projects now state 'no AI' and in some cases, you must state that this is your own work and not an AI creation. When it comes to exams, students and pupils will easily be able to cheat using AI so I'm wondering if, in the future, qualifications will become meaningless.
I spent several years working as a freelance book editor, and also worked in-house for a couple of publishers. Writers here would be shocked if they realised how bad some accepted manuscripts are, and how hard editorial staff have to work to get them to publishing level. However poor AI is right now, it's no worse than some of the stuff editors will have had to tussle with too many times in the past.
Plus poorly written books have sold well long before AI came along. Fifty Shades of Grey springs to mind as a recent example.
AI will improve rapidly, and I suspect the challenge for writers will be to produce work that AI can't. So the appetite for very formulaic work in popular genres may be satisfied by AI in the future.
You might all have seen the statement put out by NaNoWriMo yesterday, saying writers condemning AI are 'classist and ableist'. This really raised my hackles, especially as someone from working-class roots. https://www.404media.co/nanowrimo-ai-policy-classist-ableist/
Liz
I would like to think I am not alone in trying to produce the very best work I can, especially if I'm sending it out for competitions or consideration to sell. I take pains in SPaG and presentation. From what you have said, Eirin, it is likely some don't even reach a basic standard and others are having to spend time and resources doing that. I daresay the counter argument is it's the story that matters...,. I think it's both.
Don't know what I did there - I seem to have somehow eaten my own post, so I'll try again. Please forgive if the original pops up and I am repeating myself. Sharon, you are quite right - my mum would draw the line at reading rubbish. I was more thinking along the lines that Liz suggests above: my mum might well be happy enough to read 'very formulaic work' produced by AI, to get her book-a-day 'fix'. I take your word for it that AI has not proven itself capable of writing such material to an acceptable standard just yet, but might this come soon? (In my mum's defence, she also enjoys more discerning books.) Liz, I read the article you pointed out and found it bizarre.
So... for Eirin, read Liz... wondered what was going on there ;) Yes, Nanowrimo off my Christmas card list.
It's Blogger causing confusion! Eirin posted a comment without remembering to add her name, and then by the time she apologised for not putting it on her comment had gone, so it looked like she was claiming Liz's post as her own.
I've since found Eirin's original post in spam, although why it was moved there I have no idea.
I strongly suspect the comments section is currently being managed by AI!
Thanks, Patsy!
At the moment you can often sense when something has been written by AI (e.g. last year's Val Wood competition winner). There's a soulless feel to it, and some words that just aren't quite right.
I sometimes use AI (e.g. ChatGPT or Claude) to check my writing, which is always interesting. (Ask it "Please review my writing", cut and paste the whole lot in, and it 'replies' in great detail in seconds. It's actually a little alarming.)
I just asked ChatGPT if it thought it would ever replace us and got the following answer!
"AI can assist with womag (women’s magazine) writing by generating story ideas, creating content, and offering quick edits, but it has limitations. It can produce articles and short stories based on common themes, but struggles with the emotional depth, subtlety, and cultural nuance that appeal to womag readers. AI excels in writing formulaic content like quizzes or lifestyle tips but may lack the creativity and empathy required for engaging human interest stories or romance fiction. While AI is useful for supporting writers, it’s unlikely to replace the unique voice and emotional resonance required in womag writing."
Post a Comment