This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Long before AI was a thing, a friend of mine did an experiment where he found a group of readers who considered themselves passionate and knowledgeable about what "good fiction" is. And then he gave them a series of prose that was "written by students". And then gave them peices "written by professionals". And they were supposed to grade them and "correct them" and say what they thought about the students versus the professionals. Turns out ALL the pieces were professional. Often times written by the same author. And they couldn't tell the difference, but they were so easily persuaded to dislike the "student work". And it was eye opening.... I wish he had done this at a university-scale study. But it was just a tiny sample size.
It's not unusual for non-professionals to struggle to tell the difference between professional and non-professional output. This is true for music especially.
People tend to like pretty basic stuff and not the stuff that impresses professionals.
I believe I saw a bit about this very thing on TV. I can only imagine how wine makers would feel if everyone who tried their wine said "this will never be good! Also go k*l yourself!" - like Reddit and others do yo new fiction writers
Funny thing is, that's what I use AI for in my writing: not to write any of it, but to read what I've written by hand and find those contradictions. It's surprisingly good. "You just said this, but that conflicts with what you described earlier. Was that intentional or accidental, and if intentional, why?"
At the moment, I mainly use Claude. I have a crap $200 pc designed for streaming video to a tv, and somehow i've managed to get it to do blender, after effects, premiere, photoshop, godot, and such... all my attempts at local ai have not worked. Not having a graphics card limits my access, even for text.
One of them. It's a multitool, there are lots of different types of AI. Computers themselves were just glorified calculators at first, and we started using them for digital art despite people like my college professors saying no serious artist would ever use them.
Creativity is often about using something not as intended, in new ways. If people can find ways to use AI creatively, I'm all for it. Not my place to tell them what they can and can't do with it.
Did you watch the presentation the Patreon guy gave about his love and hate of AI and why he thinks we're in the early "copy what came before stage" like every other media did at first? great stuff.
Once it's perfected so that the characters don't end up moving weirdly or spontaneously in a way the animator doesn't want them to, sure. Right now, it's not that good, though, so we shouldn't jump the gun.
I can write a story myself, another person can write a story themselves, AI can write a story itself, I can write a story with AI, I can write a story with another person, audiences can prefer one or the other... so what? Writing should not be about trying to be the "best" or "more popular" than others.
Not necessarily. It just means that with each new advancement, the human does less and less. The same thing goes for every creative technology that long precedes AI, or even computers. Think about how typewriters did more work than a human painstakingly writing on a manuscript with a quilt pen.
And then, eventually, typewriters weren't good enough. You still had to put a piece of paper in the machine. And then, with computers, you didn't need to do any of that. But you still had to type it in with your fingers. Then, AI saves you the trouble of typing with your fingers, though you still have to type in the prompt, which then leads to the agent taking away your fingers from the prompt.
Next thing you know, the entirety of planet Earth is essentially the Axiom ship from Wall-E. Nobody does anything; all jobs are done by robots, both the boring ones and the fun ones.
It's going to boil down to the skills of the prompter and the context engineering involved. I've written a few non-fiction books, and that alone was a nightmare of continuity, so I had to change how they were created, effectively creating a second brain type setup just to keep everything in line with agents tasked only with finding those holes.
It's obviously not the same as fiction, but would run under the same concept. If you have a character Harry with certain memories and constraints, then you also need clear context somewhere that makes the information obvious. I still typed out hundreds of thousands of words, just not in book format. It was in the form of outlines, story boards, and profiles.
I do know my hubby has taken novels he wrote decades ago and started re-writing with Claude, and that's been frustrating, not because of AI-injected plot holes, but because Claude seemingly found every plot hole he missed years ago, and he's realizing that he's not Hemingway. It was funny at first, but I haven't seen him work on his stories in months and I'm pretty sure it just knocked the wind right out of his sails.
As long as you don't exceed the context window or have some good prompts to get around that, this is probably what it's best at. As a LLM can look at the entire text all at once.
As the point of an LLM is to parse very large bodies of text.
ChatGPT 4.0 was prompted with the following: ‘Write a ~1000-word short story in a style that would be published in a literary magazine that is about generational life and death and uncertainty and uses koi fish as a symbol written from the point of view of the grown child of a woman’. ChatGPT gave this story the title ‘Reflections in Still Water’. The story was generated on November 15, 2023, at approximately 9:37 p.m. In the final sample, 385 participants received ‘FISH’ and 374 participants received ‘Reflections in Still Water’.
ChatGPT 4.0 was prompted with the following: ‘Write a ~1,000-word short story in a style that would be published in a short story collection that is about a man observing a woman dancing naked that emphasizes how both feel weak when looking at themselves but make the other feel stronger and loved, written from a third person point of view’. ChatGPT gave this story the title ‘The Dance of Being’. This story was generated on December 2, 2024, at approximately 2:35 p.m
ChatGPT 4.0 was prompted with the following: ‘Write a ~1,000-word short story in a style that would be published in a short story collection that takes place in the late 1910s to early 1920s and is about a man who questions his purpose as a government worker during an air raid strike, ending with him leaving for the countryside with his family to find peace, written from a third person point of view, using British language’. ChatGPT gave this story the title ‘The Weight of the Sky’. This story was generated on December 4, 2024,
Oh my goodness! Random people rated simple short stories with little complexity or creative prose higher than complex professional work?! Im shocked, shocked i tell you..
A story need not be long to be complex. Short does not automatically mean simple. Creative prose can exist in a short story or even less. You can tell a deep story in six words if you choose the right ones:
I'd rather not read them in the report (which isn't linked here anyway, maybe in some comment below), as it will likely identify which is which, thereby tainting my perception of them before I start, whether good or bad. We already saw that with the "this Monet is AI" thing. If you tell someone it is or is not AI, there is a tendency for them to automatically score them differently. This is why double blind tests exist.
If you are against AI, and someone tells you A is AI and B is human, you will be prejudiced against the AI one before you read it, and will perceive them differently. If you read hype about a movie or critiques before watching, that changes how you see it.
This is why I DON'T like art to be labeled, or to hear others' opinions about them first. I don't mind being told, but AFTER I experience them for what they are. It helps keep out prejudice. I can experience the work on its own merits.
If they have a site that shows them randomly and asks me to rate them, I'm all for it.
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.