• melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    I’ve been running the Qwen 3.6 MoE model on my gaming laptop and have been using it to critique screenplays lately. It can’t write worth a shit, but it sure can tell me what’s wrong with my own writing.

    It pointed out things like this dialog is too wordy and it ruins the joke, this story beat feels “unearned”, this character feels like a “vehicle for jokes”, this line is an “exposition dump”, etc. When I ask it for suggestions on how to fix the problems it points out, its suggestions are all stupid, but when I fix the problems myself, it no longer flags them in follow-up critiques in a new chat session.

    Qwen has obviously been trained on a lot of screenplays and writing how-to books. For example, I changed the character names in a classic sitcom script, removed the series and episode title, and it recognized the writing style of the series and then even told me what episode it was. It also gives me the same advice that screenwriting books I’ve read preach, except it can point out specific cases where said principles are not being applied.

    It would be better to have a human critic, of course, but finding a human who is skilled at writing and who will take the time to critique your work can be difficult. Your friends also may not give you honest feedback. Qwen will, though. It’s not sycophantic at all from what I’ve seen, and in fact, it ripped my passion project to shreds. After I fixed all the problems it found, though, it ended up being a much better piece of writing, IMO.

    I think using a LLM as a tool to improve your own work instead of as a slop generator is the right way to go. I also feel better about running them on my own hardware and using about the same amount of power I’d use if playing a game instead while also retaining control of my data.

  • AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    It’s like sitting at one of those old player pianos you’d put the rolled paper in and it would play the sing itself, claiming you are a modern Mozart. Despite not creating the piano, music roll, or ever doing anything special besides putting the roll in.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      OTOH, is using electronically created music not art too? If you write your music and put it into FL Studio or something similar to “play” the music for you, is it not art?

      I think the electric piano is a false equivalent here. Electronically created music is not the same as AI.

      • AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I have little issue with electronically created music so long as you actually created the music. As in going into the DAW and doing it yourself or inputting the music you recorded and doing touch ups. Whatever the case, it’d be hypnocritical of me to be against it, as someone who has created music using Musescore in the past.

        Hell, I don’t have a problem with some forms of AI ( not genAI ) in music, considering the latest vocaloid generation ( vocaoid 6 ) have come full circle back into using some form of machine learning to make voicebanks. Also because there are other programs that do similar things, but I can’t fully trust a 3rd party voicebank isn’t gonna be stealing another persons voice without consent.

        I just happened to use that old piano you’d expect to see in a western movie because I had it on my mind.

      • bellsfry@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I think it depends on the extent to which an individual influences the end result. If the paper roll is pre made and the individual is merely placing it in its intended place, then that is different from carefully arranging notes and effects in a DAW.

  • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Bruh, NPR had an interview recently with an author who is a fairly big name already. She was preaching the glories of ai. Like how do you fall so hard‽

  • Mwa@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    i dont want to use AI to write cause it trains on anything and it may include some copyrighted elements.

  • quarkquasar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day ago

    The AI “artists” really crack me up.

    It’s like someone telling you they can run really fast, like crazy fast, faster than anyone else in the world.

    And then when you ask them to show you, they give you a shit-eating grin and get in a car and hit the gas.

  • pseudo@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I hate AI just like any normal person should but LLMs are reformulation and bibliographical research tool. If one field could use it right, it is the writing industry.

    That doesn’t mean it will write for you, of course.

  • IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t care. This isn’t Reddit. I am not on this planet to spend my time complaining about others.

    I am here to have fun, and as an artist. I’d rather just enjoy my own journey than worry about somebody else’s.

  • BilSabab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    to be fair - player piano is a great idea and there were composers who did stuff specifically for it - Nancarrow is the most prominent one. it’s a completely different aesthetic and requires not trying to make it seem like anything it is not though.

  • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you need an LLM to tell you how to write then you’re a fraud and a hack. It’s a skill, get good or fuck off, if you want to learn then you have to fucking learn, otherwise you’re just a plagiarist who doesn’t know shit.

    • BilSabab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      there are ways to implement LLM Generative AI creatively but it has nothing to do with what we traditionally perceive as writing fiction. It is more of text adventure interactive writing kind of thing and you still need to do much of everything while generative AI adapts it on the go. that’s one of the few legitimate use cases that actually accomplish something that is hard to do otherwise.

      • wiener234@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I hope I understand correctly what you mean. Lika a text based adventure game but instead of fixed options you write your action and the AI reacts to it.

        So a developer could write his own LLM Model and define a setting on what he trains it and then the player have a text based adventure. The game dev has set the story but he player can write his own actions instead of using the predefined ones. The LLM then reacts to them so there is more dynamic in the game.

        Is that what you mean for example? If so I would say that is a use case with the limitation that simply using chatgpt or similar would defeat the use case because it is a to general model.

      • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Fuck that. Writing is hard in general, if you’re not willing to do the work then you’re not doing the work, doesn’t matter if it’s hard, if you didn’t write it then you’re not writing. No excuses. Stop handing over your imagination just because things that are difficult to do well are difficult to do well.

  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you’re going to send me the output of some LLM, do me a favour and just send me the prompt instead. Otherwise I’m going to spend as much time reading it as you spent writing it.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      LLMs are stochastic. If I send you the prompt instead of the output, then there’s no guarantee that the output you get will be correct. If I generate the text myself, I can verify that it’s correct before sending it off.

      The problem is that as the recipient, you have no idea whether I’ve even read the output, let alone verified or understood it. And with the low barrier to entry, it’s much more likely that you’re getting unverified slop. Sharing the prompt isn’t going to help with that.

      Edit: sorry, posted before I finished writing.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Of course it will be correct: the prompt contains the idea you wanted to convey. I’ll read that and know what you meant. Feeding that prompt into an LLM doesn’t add any new ideas from you, it just inflates the text like a balloon and gussies it up with useless window dressing.

        If anything, it obscures what you meant!

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          They add new information all the time. That’s part of the problem with blindly accepting everything they output.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Yeah and since what they add doesn’t come from you, it’s not your idea, so it isn’t coming from you anymore. It’s like if you commissioned an artist to paint something for you and then gave the painting to a friend and told them you painted it for them… no, you didn’t!

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Of course. That’s a separate problem. I’m just commenting on the part where you say that they should give you the prompt.

              Sticking with your analogy, it’s like if you commissioned someone to paint something specific, then decided that you liked the result and wanted to share it with your friends, so you give your friend the instructions you gave to the painter instead of the painting itself.

  • Brummbaer@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Little children on toy cars on a merry go round, wildly steering in every direction - same energy.

  • Grimtuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If she was taking about just a proof read, then I’m okay with it. But I don’t believe she is taking about proof reading. AI should be nowhere near the creative process.

    • BilSabab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      there’s actually an entire subgenre of writers pretending to workshop story ideas with generative AI but actually trolling to get the most ridiculous responses. it works best with Claude because it create dedicated skills to make it even more stupid. Not everyone’s cup of tea but sometimes it is funny when clanker attempts to make sense of some obviously ridiculous story pitch while the writer keeps pulling the rug from under it.

    • Etterra@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      If you need to proof read something you can do it with spell check in your weird processor and an understanding of grammar.

    • Mountainaire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      AI LLM hallucinations are incredible for creativity, but the people who just lean on them for the majority of it are lazy.