Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
AI is just a tool
date
newest »
newest »
I would tend to disagree with you on this. Good writers not only create the basic ideas for a story, they also choose and arrange words to best describe that story to readers. Using a spellchecker program to correct mistakes and typos is one thing. To rely on AI to write the story along lines and concepts you chose is another. Readers would then be justified in asking themselves how much of your work is from you and how much was made by the AI, not something that would encourage more readers to look at your books.
Michel wrote: "I would tend to disagree with you on this. Good writers not only create the basic ideas for a story, they also choose and arrange words to best describe that story to readers. Using a spellchecker ..."I agree with Michel. It's kind of like telling your friend your ideas about a fictional story in your head, and the friend ends up writing the story. Is it your story or theirs?
I have only used AI as a test on some blurbs. I have not used it in a book. However, it has advanced to the point that it is now a choice that writers must make. I am undecided as to whether I will ever use it in a book. It would seem like cheating. But what if AI could write better than me? We will get to that point, if we're not already there. I am impressed with what I have seen while playing around with chatgpt. Check it out if you haven't already. As to whether the AI blurbs are better than mine, I don't know. I'm testing them out. I may devote a post to AI blurbs at a later date. Thanks for your comments. It is definitely an interesting discussion.
I think people are also concerned that their copyrighted work is being fed into AI's to educate/prepare them. Apparently this is especially a concern among artists.
We are certainly breaking new ground in many areas. There is a controversy as to whether an AI-generated image can be copyrighted. And on it goes.
I thanked him for his comment and told him it was food for thought. However, I told him AI is only a tool. Do we praise someone for refusing to use a calculator to multiply large numbers? No, I think we would just wonder why they would choose to do that.
Here is my full response to his remark:
It's just a tool. Should we still be on typewriters and looking up words in a dictionary? No, we use computers and spellchecker. Should we still be looking up stuff in encyclopedias? No, we use Google. As long as I give AI the instructions, what difference should it make if a computer puts the finishing touches on the words. The idea is more important than the words. We think in ideas and not words. I certainly respect your opinion, however. It is the same way artists feel about the generation of AI images and music. I don't have any magic answers. But it's coming whether we embrace it or not. The AI functions like a newspaper editor assigning a reporter a story. AI also functions like a human book editor. I haven't used it in any of my books so far because I am just now learning about it. I might try it. However, your words are definitely food for thought. It is a decision all writers must carefully consider. I think it may be similar to using a computer to solve a calculus problem. Certainly there are some people who can crunch the numbers for themselves. But why would they want to? Computers are faster and efficient. I don't know of anyone who has a problem with using a calculator to multiply large numbers. We all do that and I doubt if anyone wants to return to working it out with a pencil and paper. Doing long division was never much fun.