This Is Why So Many Authors Are Scared of AI
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- Is the fear of AI rational or simply an emotional reaction? In this video, we explore AI-phobia's psychology. We dive into the fear of job loss. We also cover the feeling of "stolen" creative works and the legal realities of AI training data.
Join the conversation and share your thoughts on AI in the comments below! Don't forget to subscribe. You'll get more thought-provoking discussions on technology and its impact on society.
✅ FREE RESOURCES
Get a free AI course, my 40-chapter Plot Module, and my prompt library ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/free
✅ JOIN THE MEMBERSHIP
Join my membership and get a free fine-tuned model + 2 free books with your 14-day free trial ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/ai-story...
✅ MY TOP AI TOOLS
Novelcrafter (best all-in-one tool for fiction) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/novelcra...
AutoCrit (best for editing) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/autocrit...
Sudowrite (best for beginners) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/sudowrite
Future Fiction Academy (for learning AI) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/futurefi...
Midjourney (for art) ▶ ▶ www.midjourney.com
ElevenLabs (for audio) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/elevenlabs
✅ OTHER TOP TOOLS FOR AUTHORS
Publisher Rocket (for research) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/publishe...
Atticus (for formatting) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/atticus
ProWritingAid (for proofreading) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/prowriti...
Miblart (for book covers) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/miblart
Wondrium (my personal favorite resource) ▶ ▶ nerdynovelist.com/go/wondrium
✅ FIND ME
The Website - nerdynovelist.com
My Membership - storyhacker.ai
#AIphobia #AIEthics #ArtificialIntelligence #FutureOfWork
Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
00:30 - Why AI is Scary
01:50 - Emotional vs. Logical
03:38 - Scarcity vs. Abundance Mindset
05:05 - AI as Opportunity
08:16 - Conclusion
Do the same authors that fear AI because it was trained on copyrighted work also read copyrighted work to train their brains to write better in their genre?
They probably do, but either don't want to admit it or don't see the connection.
@@canaisyoung3601 They don't accept this argument, because they argue that a human CAN'T actually learn from everyone and everything and in a matter of months, rather than over a lifetime like a human is, so they argue that how the AI and human learns is not a fair comparison.
I’m using Novelai with my Novel as a writing buddy. When Im stuck in my story or need to describe something and I just can’t think of the words, I ask Novelai for help. I have 15k words for my novel so far, and less than 500 words are AI. When I mention I use AI for help they say “so you’re using AI to write your book for you?” 😒
I use NovelAI the same way. The odds of the AI giving me exactly what I want are low. But the odds of it giving me an idea of how to move on are very high. This way I use AI to help me produce more words (MY words). I don't get stuck any more.
I see it like this... a century ago, cabinet makers all used hand saws, hand drills, and chisels to craft beautiful cabinetry. By the mid-century, they were using powered saws, drills, and routers, still creating beautiful cabinets. In less time.
Yes, folks like wal-mart used power tools to make cheap cabinets that don't last a year. And yes, some authors will use AI to make a book that won't last a day.
I love the fact that AI is so good at speech pattern recognition. It's the ultimate thesaurus. A thesaurus you can actually talk to and get the right word you're looking for. So brilliant.
People who hate AI reflexively just won't understand.
there's a stgma to it, but that will pass when the novelty of ai wears off and it becomes more of a norm
That's right.. if you are a real writer, you don't have to use AI... Stop it... it's fake cheat writing...
if you use, auto complete, spell checking or grammarly, or google to research, you're already using AI. you the human still decides in the end what to use, what to keep, and what constitutes unique human qualities.
Exactly!
AI really helps with that saying: “Work smarter, not harder.” Its there as a tool to help you be more efficient while writing.
Just wanted to share the fact that the abundance mindset really is one of the keys to success. I learned about it in the movie "The Secret" and shortly thereafter I went from living in a terrible hood between Harlem and the South Bronx to now Owning multiple homes in an affluent neighborhood of Long Island.
The scarcity mindset plagues almost all of the people who I grew up with in the hood, and sadly even despite some of them having learned about the laws of success like the law of attraction, they were never able to implement it as I did.
While I do agree with you, Adobe might not be one of the "good guys" that solely use training data from their extensive stock photo library. There has been a whole dispute about their Terms of Service, which mentions that they are allowed to also use files stored in their cloud service. Every Adobe user clicked on "Agree" in order to use their products, so technically they did consent to this kind of usage, but many photographers and designers feel tricked and duped, as hardly anybody ever reads those licence agreements.
The issue lies in the wording of their terms. It seems they intend to use your content to enhance your device's search functionality across different file types and management programs. However, the poorly phrased terms leave an opening for them to potentially utilize your content for AI generation in the future. Additionally, opting out wouldn't grant you access to your own material. This essentially forces you to choose between surrendering unbacked-up work on your device and agreeing to their terms.
This is nothing new. I learned how to type in my HS typing class on a Smith Corona typewriter in the late 80s. I imagine a lady who was a typist in an office being told to learn to use MS Word on a computer was annoyed too.
This is just the way of things. Never stop learning and adapt quickly to the new tools that technology provides.
I watched a video from an author who discussed "the only proper uses for AI for writers". He discussed things like research, editing, etc. but he was adamant that you should never allow the AI to have any creative input. I mostly use LLMs for brainstorming. I come up with an idea, the discuss it will Claude or ChatGPT and I find that they will help me come up with better ideas. The AIs make suggestions, but it will trigger new ideas in my head. It also helps to use the AI to organize the idea at the end of our discussions.
They're simply luddites. No different than my boomer dad refusing to get a cell phone or pay bills online, even though it would make his life so much easier.
I'm pretty pro-AI but you're surprised that telling someone that something is legal is going to change their opinion on the ethics of it? Those are two different things. There's also a sentiment that the laws just haven't caught up yet. The DMCA that brought down Napster had only existed for a couple years prior to it being brought down and the internet was a more established thing at that point than generative AI is now.
Pointing out that there is no copyright law that currently addressed the distribution of weights trained on copyrighted data sets is a fine argument if someone is saying that AI is illegal but it's hardly a get out of jail free card for the ethics issue.
Wasn’t trying to address the ethics issue. I’ll do that in a separate video. But the point is that even if it is unethical and it remains part of our culture, our attitude on how we deal with it is going to make a huge difference.
I've gotten so far in brainstorming thanks to Claude (all the way back from Claude Instant!) Without Claude to summarize my ramblings and its help in writing basic scenes for my characters (for me to get a clearer picture of them), there'd be no idea. No story. No characters.
I don't write professionally, so I have no skin in the game so to speak. I just do it for fun, because I love my characters. But it's been so liberating returning to writing, I used to love doing it when I was younger. Without Claude, I wouldn't have started again.
Imagine if AI had been trained on works submitted by artists and authors; no stealing in any way, only using stuff in the public domain and stuff willingly submitted by creators.
Now, would people who are against AI be okay with AI if it was trained on "fair" material?
To me, it doesn't really matter, cuz either way we would still be in this situation. AI is really fun, and I spent my days writing and drawing way before AI became a thing, but I still like AI!
Yeah I think authors would, in that case, accuse the authors who willingly submitted their works as betrayers who want to kill the careers of other authors.
I view AI as an extremely powerful assistive technology that, when wielded by a creative individual, significantly amplifies their capabilities.
AI is an assistant to sometimes goes off the rails though. LOL
AI is going to eventually replace the vast majority of jobs. Authors just happen to be on the vanguard of that trend. I think that's an oversimplified version of the reality though. People are always going to want books that are written by real humans. Readers attach to specific authors, and they may even line up to get their latest book. I don't see that ever happening for an AI. I personally look at AI as a huge godsend. As authors, we have to wear a lot of hats and not all of them are fun. I love letting AI help me to rapidly complete the tasks that I don't enjoy, so that I can spend my time working on what I do enjoy, writing. I haven't had more than an hours worth of writers block since I started using AI. It's wonderful.
The one and only complaint that I do have with AI has nothing to do with AI and everything to do with CZcamsrs trying to make a fast buck by promoting lazy use of AI to "get rich quick" by pumping out thousands of AI generated "books" aka garbage and flooding the market, capitalizing on the one or two out of the thousands that happens to sell.
The problem with this is that it floods the already flooded market and makes it hard for new, unrecognized real authors to get discovered. They can still do it via social media and word of mouth, but it makes it harder to be heard over the noise. I foresee it also causing problems for readers. I think the mountain of 100% AI generated garbage is going to topple over onto the reader and sour a lot of them to reading simply because they can't find good, quality content. They will just stick with the authors that they know and refuse to branch out.
Love it. It was the abundance mindset that got me from an entry level position to one where I managed managers and their teams. It's very powerful.
I got to the point where I write on my own now because I like my own voice.
Ai HAS helped me find my voice! And I love using it to help me improve my craft. I’m pro AI!
You're right that some people won't change their minds, but some people will. I used to be against AI totally, but I've come around and see the benefit of it now. I don't really think it'll replace authors. It's actually more likely to replace editors than anything else, imo, which can also seem scary, but I no longer think it's as much of a threat as I used to.
I absolutely love it I've been writing since I was a kid I'm 39 ai has helped me so much
Your videos have been so very helpful! Joanna Penn has been a big advocate for years, but you’ve been boots-on-the-ground helpful. I was blocked for the last year and a half and your videos have really helped me get back to the keyboard!
Great message, Jason. Thanks for sharing about the abundance mindset. Every tool just makes us better at what we already do.
I don't fear AI. I've used Grammarly's editing software and Chat GPT to change chapters to screenplay format. I just don't use generative AI because I consider it unnessesary and It never comes out like I want it. So I just rather write my own books. I've used generative AI covers for Wattpad, but I rather submit my future books to a small press and get it done by experts.
I see this this mindset a LOT these days. It doesn't matter how many "receipts" you bring, you're never going to convince some people. All they want to do is yell that you're wrong and stupid for having that opinion instead of actually listening.
Also the example you give sounds a lot like the parable of the vineyard workers. Matthew 20: 1-16. 💗
🔥 & soo on point 👍 indeed
Nailed it
A knife in the kitchen vs
A knife in the Park
Good vs Bad
I am confident that the unique situations that I create in my stories would not be replicated by AI. I think AI has a place for proofreading. For example, if it points out verb tense inconsistencies then I’m not sure why that is a problem. Or misspelling in context I.e “knew” vs “new”, etc.
First off, Jason, I love your videos, always loaded with great information and insights. I also enjoy talking head style in general, because I feel like the speaker is addressing me personally. I have a question, though - I see that you use frequent rough edits that may zoom in or zoom out slightly from your face. I understand originally these types of edits are used to cut out mistakes or unwanted footage. So I wonder, are you doing this because you edit out that much of your footage, or do you do it for style? I really hope it is not for style, because personally I prefer a few human mistakes here and there rather than having such visual interruptions to the style. I also find I prefer the use of pause beats, even in some cases a pregnant pause, for emphasis, which also gives the viewer's brain those nanoseconds to process what is being said and prepare for the next thought. It's very subtle and maybe my brain is just getting old, lol. Nevertheless, many AI talking heads lack a default capability of these type of pauses that make absorbing information much easier on so many levels. Thank you ahead of time for your thoughts!
Great video. That was a great synthesis of it.
Interesting discussion regarding abundance vs scarcity mindset. However, studies have now been completed which show that it is the marginally productive workers that show the greatest increase in productivity while the highly productive workers show marginal gains. In other words, rather than expanding the productivity proportionally of all workers, it merely narrows the gap between the low and highly productive workers. It destroys the advantage of the previously highly productive and their claim to higher wages....flattens the curve, in other words.
A quick search on perplexity ai would bring up these studies.....
Totally agree with the use of AI and see the benefits of the tech - however, the Adobe issue is more about licensing and the unfairness of the subscription based business model, and the new terms and conditions do not limit them to using stock material now or in the future to train their AI products. The Adobe issue then becomes a dispute over intellectual property.
I don't think authors are afraid of AI, rather they're concerned with it's possible misuse.
I'm writing a novel right now. First, I finish chapter, all by myself. Then, I use AI to read my work, give me grammatical help, and offers different ways to right what I just said. AI for me is my editor. But, without what I come up with, AI will not write my book for me.
I also use 11Labs. I write everything first, then I set my work as an audio book. AI is just here to help me work faster.
While i can see how this applies to a writers perspective, when it comes to the art it doesnt seem to be quite the same, AI has vastly reduced the client base at the entry level. Simply because people can get images for free which they previously could not produce themselves, this applies to book covers as well, why pay someone when you can spend an hour trying different prompts and generate a close enough book cover for no charge. Its not necessarily a matter of producing higher quality products at that point when the clients are looking to cheapers alternatives that you sinply could not compete with.
This is exceedingly obvious when you're in some of the fanfiction binding groups and they create rather lovely AI covers, page overlays, typsets etc for all the fan fictions they love. If authors were not afraid of backlash from viewers for using AI covers (which i dare say will reduce over time) a large portion of previously professional artists who have devoted years to their crafts development will struggle to find enough clients as the market will be saturated.
While i would love to see this as a challenge, i struggle to given this isnt just happening in the book cover and such end of the profession, this is industry wide . While your example of working with AI to boost your hard work, its pretty hard to make a living when you're competing against a program that costs $10 or $20 a month vs the several hundred you'd need to make the effort of the boosted product worth while. And lets face it, using AI for art is usually done to reduce outgoings, shorten production time and increase profability of the finished products. So while AI can boost writing and helps some authors along, its not necessarily a wonderful thing all over in my opinion.
Given how hard it is to get AI to actually produce anything even worth considering, to say nothing of using, it should become immediately apparent (and relieving) to any author who tries it that AI will not be replacing them any time soon.
That was said about the art AI generators that popped up a few years ago. Many these days can tell an AI image form the real thing.
Anytime a new technology rears itself, there is inevitable pushback due to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). This is (yet again) FUD, but now with respect to AI. Here's how FUD usually plays out:
The journey from FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to acceptance and finally to embracement of new technologies or ideas typically follows a series of psychological and social steps. Here is an outline of these steps:
1. Introduction of the New Concept
Announcement: A new technology, idea, or concept is introduced to the public.
Initial Reactions: Mixed reactions occur, with excitement from early adopters and skepticism from others.
2. Fear (F)
Concern Over Change: People fear the unknown and potential negative impacts.
Misinformation: Lack of information or misinformation can amplify fears.
Resistance: Initial resistance and criticism from those who feel threatened by the change.
3. Uncertainty (U)
Questioning: People start to ask questions and seek more information.
Debate: Public and expert debates ensue, discussing potential benefits and drawbacks.
Testing: Early adopters begin to test the concept, providing preliminary feedback.
4. Doubt (D)
Skepticism: Doubts persist, especially regarding efficacy, safety, and long-term impacts.
Evidence Gathering: Accumulation of data and case studies from early use.
Critical Analysis: Experts and institutions analyze and critique the concept.
5. Early Adoption
Proof of Concept: Initial successes and benefits are demonstrated by early adopters.
Increased Interest: Growing interest from a broader audience as doubts begin to diminish.
Media Coverage: Positive media coverage highlighting successful use cases.
6. Acceptance
Mainstream Adoption: Wider acceptance and adoption as the concept proves its value.
Standardization: Development of standards and best practices.
Regulation: Regulatory bodies establish guidelines and policies.
7. Embracement
Integration: The concept is fully integrated into everyday life or industry practices.
Innovation: Continued innovation and improvement based on widespread use.
Cultural Shift: The concept becomes a norm, and societal attitudes shift positively towards it.
8. Advocacy and Evangelism
Champions: Influential figures and organizations advocate for and evangelize the concept.
Education: Educational programs and resources are developed to support widespread understanding and use.
Community Building: Strong communities form around the concept, fostering collaboration and further innovation.
We're probably somewhere in the 2nd/3rd stage.
I see it like this... a century ago, cabinet makers all used hand saws, hand drills, and chisels to craft beautiful cabinetry. By the mid-century, they were using powered saws, drills, and routers, still creating beautiful cabinets. In less time.
Yes, folks like Wal-mart buy from manufacturers that have power tools to make cheap cabinets that don't last a year. And yes, some authors will use AI to make a book that won't last a day.
Fully agree with you, it’s also an opportunity to be able to create stories that you have in mind with the help of a powerful tool that assists you, you still need creativity mindset to to that !
Great, a real nice explanation and help for all areas of life that AI will affect.
Jason, what is the best way to extract a character list with descriptions from a lengthy, intricate historical novel?
What you say may be true of authors. However, in the general public. I believe they have seen The Terminator too many times and they are afraid of the Skynet scenario. If some defense contractor creates a new weapon system and gets a little careless with the super AI included in the system and it starts modifying it's own code..... You get the scenario.
I fear people will turn AI into a ''sterile craft'' without pushing the envelope.
Many will. But they will be far overshadowed by those who don’t that their work is likely to sink into obscurity.
There is nothing wrong with AI writing. A lot of AI critics cling to their purity tests for creativity but don't apply the same stringent standards to other aspects of life.
What’s your take on AI music? The record labels are suing them for copyright infringement?
iam pro ai as a tool I still agree with authors and artists that they should constant first for their craft to be used to train ai cuz otherwise it sounds unethical to me
How you gotten permission from every artist and author whose copyrighted works you've read?
How do I access the free prompt library? The link only takes me to a sales page with no access to prompts unless I purchase.
That’s the link for my membership. The sign up for my newsletter is at the home page.
Can you please suggest me a free best AI tool to write a good realistic short stories?
AI like any tool can only get you so far alone, it will never create any type of artwork by itself, its up to the person to create it, not the computer, you will always want that human creativity to direct it.
As a person who'd never use AI to write, I can agree on one thing: writers don't need to be afraid.
Those who obsess over every word choice; cadence; sentence length; figures of speech that only work in a unique context - their works will rise to the top. And these writers know already. AI, for them, is a waste of time. The generated prose just won't fit their 'voice'. They will continue to torture themselves filling in that blank page, because they enjoy the pain. Writers are a bunch of delusional masochists - and if you write, you know that's a compliment.
But there's no need to judge from a high horse (e.g. "writers who use AI aren't real writers!" etc). Ethics and legality aside, there's no stopping the wave. Embrace change as it is, and let people enjoy themselves.
In years to come, I imagine there will be an increased output of 'mid brow' works. Perfectly enjoyable works, mind you. The overall 'quality' of works in the market will rise - and by quality, I mean competently written with a coherent, engaging plot. If you want to be great, you'll have to push yourself and be REALLY great. Ironically, I believe, the rise of AI will make non-AI works even better.
If learning is theft, should we close all schools and libraries? Can any author solemnly declare that they never read any copyrighted books before they started writing? If we can't change entrenched people's minds, we should at least seek to inform those who have not yet dug their trenches.
In the trenches of your mind is depth AI needs to be programmed to uncover. How does organic get reached when the earthen metaphor is replete with societally ideological constructs???
Yes. While getting an education, we all read copyrighted works. But guess what? The books we write are not all the same and we're not reproducing those copyrighted works. We generate something new, and that's what AI does.
Having used Computers since the 1980s.. we can see that people have feared change for a long time in the digital age. If you go back to when Photoshop came out, in the 1990s, Artists were scared, and if you go to the way back machine you will see similar arguments about Photoshop back then that is being used against AI now.
AI learns LIKE Humans learn. PERIOD.. No Writer, or Artist can create without emulating what they see. We write to market.. HOW DO WE DO THAT? We read books in the market and we write the tropes and plots that people love. Writers can't write without reading and they then write similar plots, ideas .. so Human Brains are doing what AI does.. just AI does it faster..
Luddites exist.. they won't go away.. people have feared the unknown for EVER..
Artists were afraid in the 1800s about Photography, Artists were afraid of Photoshop in the 1990s..
Imagine how afraid people were at the first typeset machines? when Word Processing became a thing.. trust me, I was there.. people who WROTE long hand had a dire prediction then too.. There is always a group of hand-wringers. ALWAYS..
The Bell Curve exists.. there are early adopters.. and those who wait.. We are the early Adopters. We are the Pioneers, the adventurers going to Africa, or America in the 1600s.. it was not safe, it was scary.. you could die, or thrive..
I have a meme I post to luddites.. it says.. "AI won't take your job.. but Someone Who KNOWS AI will. "
I now belong to mostly AI-supportive groups because I don't have time to hang out with handwringers and fearmongers.
The AI Centric artist and writer groups are full of ideas, support and expanding ideas.. Leave the fear mongers behind.. as you said.. the abundance mindset is the key.
SKYNET IS COMING! FEAR THE AI!
The Copyright argument falls apart the moment you ask those artists if they ever analysed the techniques of any of the old Masters, or ever been inspired by another piece of work. For Novelists, anyone of them who ever as much as heard of the Hero's Journey or Safe The Cat, let alone learned the structure, they are all as much guilty of copyright infringement as the AI that was trainined on thousands of copyrighted works.
Can you address the issue of authors struggling with copyrighting their original work because of AI detectors. Is this true?
I can. And nope.
I may change my mind eventually, but right now, I feel like using AI for more than just ideas is "cheating." I feel almost like it's plagiarism, not copyright infringement; I'm not breaking any known laws, I'm just cheating myself by not sharpening my own writing skills.
Or are you sharpening a new and completely different skill?
Exactly!!!!!!!!
But ai can’t publish a book or replace other people
99% of human beings will not be in a position to produce anything of value someday.
This includes writers of course.
Why not?
@@wtvhdentertainmentpro6064 AGI is coming
I disagree, even if AGI gets here. Humans will always create. We just might create for completely different reasons.
@@TheNerdyNovelist big brands like Stephen King will always have a place. Smaller brands, not so much.
@@Ton369 On the contrary, the rise of the Internet saw an increase in more human-produced products and services because people were tired of too much corporate. In the age of AI, the human connection will matter more than every before. No AI can do that, so if you, as a smaller brand, can make that human connection with at least 1000 true fans, you'll be fine. Remember to cultivate the creator/abundance mindset rather than attract negative outcomes to yourself by keeping the cynical attitude. It will hurt you in the long run, just my advice.
Well said! Let's hope you're not preaching to the choir here! 😆
I don't care at all who or what wrote a book if I like the book.
You sure about Adobe doing everything by the book?
Have you not heard ANYTHING about their latest contract blunder?
I generally like generative ai, but I don’t think using Adobe as a poster child is doing your argument any good.
Huge misunderstandings about that contract.
You have missed a point. Before you can use AI successfully as a tool, you need to be able to write yourself. Otherwise you won’t be able to spot bad AI writing, which happens more often than not. Learn the craft first, and then you make use of the shortcuts AI provides. That’s why they teach long division in elementary school: even though a calculator can do division in a fraction of the time, you wouldn’t really know what division is or why it is useful to divide if you haven’t been exposed to the intricate nuts and bolts of division.
Maybe. But there are plenty of good editors who have never written a book in their life but they can absolutely make a book amazing. It’s a different skill.
@@TheNerdyNovelist I hear you, but I also think it's best to at least write your first novel without the use of AI. You need to find your own voice and style, for example. Sorry, English is not my first language.
You obviously missed the adobe fiasco with their terms of service and how bad they were with their language things they could have clearly stated with two or three words. And they literally set up the design ability around a Ransomware technique. Now, even if they didn't intend to use it for growing of AI, they didn't make it sound that way and they were really scummy with their response. They literally framed it in a way that was if you don't agree to this, you don't have access to the Projects you've been creating with us until you do. So if you wanted to take your work and move it elsewhere because you didn't agree with the new terms, you weren't allowed to. I should have probably used AI to make this passage Have a tad bit more clarity. LOL
I didn’t miss it. It wasn’t nearly as big of a fiasco as people made it out to be. Even more fear mongering and misunderstanding of what was no more than a few statements in the TOS that could have been more clear.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Let's hope so. but the ransomware agreement tactic, Kind of feels like smelling fish that's been sitting under the hot sun for about a week. LOL
I can't agree more ,nobody's stopping you to use same ai and no work ,no knowledge, no passion no good work
Faulty AI Detection Tools that are falsely flagging original books as written by AI. i've tested many of these tools which incorrectly identified Edgar Allen Poe and George Orwell, just to name a few, as being partially or wholly written by AI. Now here is the problem - Publishers and the US gov copyright office are using these faulty tools, if your work doesnt pass these tools (and they wont no matter how original your work is), you can not copyright your books. Publishers probably won't even publish your books. It's not that authors are afraid of AI it's that authors are pissed off that AI is killing original works by stopping them from being copyrighted and published. Oh, then there is the pesky problem of plagiarism that pops up with AI on occasion. Just because you love AI does not mean that the public at large shares your sentiment. It's a problem that is only going to get worse. Authors don't fear AI , they loathe it.
So the issue is that publishers and US gov are using FAUTLY tools, easily provable by your example as NOT working. How is this the fault of AI technology? Why aren't writers rallying against publishers/US gov to stop them from using faulty tech to appraise their work?
Honestly I like how it gives grammatically wrong corrections to style and how its suggestions are mostly garbage.. I like it being wrong and I have no desire to notify its creators... nope...
Sounds like points that could be brought up (and live tested) in a courtroom for a lawsuit against the copyright office. My HS teacher got in big trouble for using these tools.
But, WHAT IF the AI detection tools are correct, and Poe and Orwell actually DID use AI? Somebody please use an AI tool to write THAT story.
@@JasonKoepp good point
AI is just another author that can be better, as good or worse than you. Someone still needs to market those books, and even trad publishers don't have complete success with marketing (thus, most of their books fail, too). If you are a writer that loves perfect prose, than good for you, but I think most people don't care about perfect prose. They want an exciting story, and AI will not corner the market on that. As long as you can think up a story, you can write. Yes, AI can put together a book quicker, and it might be good, but so what? You already compete against millions of books. What is another million?
Just keep writing the stories the way you want. I use Sudowrite to offer changes to sentences or paragraphs that I don't like-the same thing I would ask beta readers, friends, or editors to do. I see no difference in that. AI might have been trained on a lot of works, but so have we. If it's outright plagiarism, then okay, get them. If not, don't worry. Just make your book the best you can.
The fact that it's legal doesn't mean that it's ethical. Crypto pump and dump scams are technically legal. Adobe taking photos that have been submitted to them to licence as stock photos (licence! not own!) and using them as training for their AI (not as stock! which is the licence they had!) without asking is technically legal. Adobe then trying to change their TOS to be able to use your files wherever they are is technically legal. Adobe then folding like a little bitch and adjusting their TOS and pretending they didn't try to to sneak one past the users is also legal and very embarrassing. The fact that the law hasn't caught up with it doesn't mean it's not scummy.
You trying to read other people's minds is also pretty presumptuous. I'm not worried about a person using AI to get to the same level as me. Good luck to them trying. I am worried about 3 million AI bros flooding Amazon with unedited Chat-GPT dross that will make it impossible to discover new good authors. I am worried about magazines closing their submissions because they've been inundated by more AI bros with more Chat-GPT dross.
You seem like a nice and reasonable person who is trying to use AI eithically and produce good work with it. Good on you. But pretending you aren't a minority in this pile of shitheads trying to AI-generate the next Game of Thrones book or porn starring Scarlett Johanssen and Teletubbies is either overly optimistic or disingenous on your part.
Have you gotten written permission from every author and artist whose copyrighted works you looked at? Everything we've looked at and read has informed our brains (trained them). And because of all we've seen and read, we've produced original works, which is what AI does.
@@cherrlyn381 There is a difference. One person went outside, saw a pair of pants they liked, approximated their own pattern, adjusted things to their taste, and made their own garment. Another person took the pants they liked without permission, disassembled them, fed the measurements to a computer, and started up their own pants-making business. They are not the same.
Also AI cannot produce original works. It doesn't think. It approximates stuff based on data it consumes. Which is at best fanart. Except a human fanartist has their own point of view and their own style. AI can only copy someone else's.
You're talking about creating art as if you were talking about manufacturing folding chairs. Yes, it's more 'productive.' But it doesn't come from anybody's soul.
That's just vague "woo woo" bs.
Good writing is all about solid fundamentals, and thorough revision.
Mystification is wholly unnecessary
hmm. in other art forms like writing lyrics would it be "not from the soul" if for example you used a rhyming dictionary, or took inspiration from a book you just read, or worked out a guitar part while jamming to a computer generated rythm section?
drummers used to think using drum
machines was cheating too, but drummers weren't replaced. and what is the test of something "coming from the soul"? I'd say it's more about what resonates with your own soul, not where it comes from. what about an architect who relies on a whole host of other talent to realize his vision? I suspect that when human emotions are expressed according to human vision then it will resonate as human art. Ai can easily create things that on the surface appear "slick" but the substance that resonates as art will be the human part. and like mass produced cake or clothes, on the surface they look the same as something of quality but people will recognize the quality, and for some the mass produced one is good enough, and what if the baker making the high quality cake decides that because it's so popular he finds a way to automate some tasks to make it more efficient without sacrificing quality, would that be cheating?
Let's not get pedantic here friend there is no human soul. About souls and auras but the truth is AI is here to stay so you need to find yourself on the right side of history or get left behind
@@dukeofdenver Yep, just like folding chairs.
@@larrysteinke1839 I suppose I was being a bit provocative in the broadness of my statement and not being as nuanced as I could have been. to clarify, I was referring to simply letting AI write all the actual prose. I've 'created' images with Midjourney and I'd feel like a fraud if I claimed to have 'drawn' those images -- and not just because I didn't technically put pencil to paper. I didn't create those images. I merely initiated the process. The images didn't come from my soul.