If writers use AI to do the writing for them, they’re not writers, they’re prompters that want credit for “writing” what the AI model they’re using is producing.
In the same way, someone who has a piano programmed to play a song can’t be proud of having played it themselves, because it wasn’t their work that made the piano play.
That’s not “black-and-white-only thinking”, it’s just a reasonable analogy for what a writer “writing” with AI actually is, which isn’t a writer.
If we don’t call film directors “actors” because their actions partially result in the film being made the way it is, and we don’t call people pressing the “play x song” button on an electric piano musicians just for having caused the piano to play with that button, why should we call someone who tells an AI model to write a book for them a writer? These are fundamentally different roles, so we call them what they are. If you’re not writing, you’re not a writer, you’re an AI user. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Except your premise is black and white when there are far more possibilities.
Hey AI, I’ve looked for 3 hours, and can’t find the plans to to this one jail in Ipswitch, Mass in 1750. Can you describe it to me? And what was a typical guard rotation like? Yeah, I’m gonna use it in that one scene in Chapter 4. Oh, sure a list of historical jailbreaks from there and neighboring towns would be grand.
Even setting aside the very real possibility that AI is just going to hand you a series of hallucinations, if you’re not willing to immerse yourself in the era by reading primary sources and expanding your knowledge past what you think to ask an LLM, it’s going to be an incredibly shallow piece of work.
What the research is showing is that people who use LLMs become increasingly less willing and able to do their own thinking. Soon the idea of sitting down with the weekend reading a book is a nightmare compared to having an LLM spoonfeed you answers while it sucks your cock about all your insightful questions.
The author can, you know, imagine what it was and write that. Using AI in your exampl3 may give you an a curate answer, but how do you kmow if you have no other sources to verify its output? How do you know you’re not getting a hallucination when it can’t find the into either?
Sometimes it does provide sources, you know. I’ve also had AI find me TV show clips I knew existed, but Google pretended I imagined even though I could go to the actual episode and watch said clip, and whadaya know someone out of 11 billion people on planet fucking Earth did actually make, but I don’t know I guess Google saw a butterfly before actually reaching it.
Okay, in this case the action in question is not writing, it’s researching.
If you try to research a topic for three hours and then ask AI… where do you think it’s getting the information? From the Ipswich Jailhouse basement? No, it’s making them up out of whole cloth and now the book that you wanted to give a historical grounding is at best pure fiction and at worst active misinformation.
Yeah, unless it finally gives a verifiable source that Google wouldn’t because it’s turned to dogshit, or the records exist, but aren’t easily accessible. Or unless you’re just writing fiction anyway, and some drawn conclusions from other historical sources is fine.
But I’m sure now you’ll tell me why it’s still slop if the info is verified. Or why someone sitting down to write a little story he thought of should have access to notes actual historians with professional resources spend years gathering.
If we’re gonna embrace black-and-white-only thinking, isn’t she a Nazi for being on substack?
If writers use AI to do the writing for them, they’re not writers, they’re prompters that want credit for “writing” what the AI model they’re using is producing.
In the same way, someone who has a piano programmed to play a song can’t be proud of having played it themselves, because it wasn’t their work that made the piano play.
That’s not “black-and-white-only thinking”, it’s just a reasonable analogy for what a writer “writing” with AI actually is, which isn’t a writer.
If we don’t call film directors “actors” because their actions partially result in the film being made the way it is, and we don’t call people pressing the “play x song” button on an electric piano musicians just for having caused the piano to play with that button, why should we call someone who tells an AI model to write a book for them a writer? These are fundamentally different roles, so we call them what they are. If you’re not writing, you’re not a writer, you’re an AI user. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
Except your premise is black and white when there are far more possibilities.
Even setting aside the very real possibility that AI is just going to hand you a series of hallucinations, if you’re not willing to immerse yourself in the era by reading primary sources and expanding your knowledge past what you think to ask an LLM, it’s going to be an incredibly shallow piece of work.
What the research is showing is that people who use LLMs become increasingly less willing and able to do their own thinking. Soon the idea of sitting down with the weekend reading a book is a nightmare compared to having an LLM spoonfeed you answers while it sucks your cock about all your insightful questions.
Brain rot is real.
The author can, you know, imagine what it was and write that. Using AI in your exampl3 may give you an a curate answer, but how do you kmow if you have no other sources to verify its output? How do you know you’re not getting a hallucination when it can’t find the into either?
Sometimes it does provide sources, you know. I’ve also had AI find me TV show clips I knew existed, but Google pretended I imagined even though I could go to the actual episode and watch said clip, and whadaya know someone out of 11 billion people on planet fucking Earth did actually make, but I don’t know I guess Google saw a butterfly before actually reaching it.
“AI rox cause it dpesnt chase vutterflies” Get the fuck outta hers, it just makes ahit up wo often thwt its completely unreliable. Only hacks use it.
I like the way you type. Is there a reason behind it?
Really poor vision and ADHD?
I was thinking three fingers of whiskey, lol.
… What?
Okay, in this case the action in question is not writing, it’s researching.
If you try to research a topic for three hours and then ask AI… where do you think it’s getting the information? From the Ipswich Jailhouse basement? No, it’s making them up out of whole cloth and now the book that you wanted to give a historical grounding is at best pure fiction and at worst active misinformation.
Yeah, unless it finally gives a verifiable source that Google wouldn’t because it’s turned to dogshit, or the records exist, but aren’t easily accessible. Or unless you’re just writing fiction anyway, and some drawn conclusions from other historical sources is fine.
But I’m sure now you’ll tell me why it’s still slop if the info is verified. Or why someone sitting down to write a little story he thought of should have access to notes actual historians with professional resources spend years gathering.
lol
Oh, you are just such a tolerant person, seeing nuances in every AI-slop. A real human bean.
And a real hero.
Nope.