AI writing is really good

[gunhilltrain]

To summarize the article, the GPT wrote a very boring 1000 word story in about 17 seconds. BUT: (and it's a big BUT) the author spent ~2 weeks on his, wrote a ~2000 word story and then edited it significantly. Also, this apparently just used the off-the-shelf standard ChatGPT
Now, the question at hand I would think is could she run GPT, then edit the story to create something of quality? If you view GPT as a first draft maker...

There is something creepy if the first draft doesn't come out of a human mind.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, you all know what I think about AI (for writing or running the world) and it isn't something I want to happen.

 

[mirafrida]

Now, the question at hand I would think is could she run GPT, then edit the story to create something of quality? If you view GPT as a first draft maker...

That is certainly the question I asked myself when reading the piece.

My personal gut feel was that when trying to write a *good* story, starting with a bunch of passable gray-goo text is not a great help, and quite possibly a hindrance on the path to actually reaching high quality prose. But who knows, maybe it depends on your work style

 

[Carnevil9]

Eventually you might not be able to tell which is which. Was Deckard really a blade runner? Will there be an equivalent of the Voight-Kampff test for AI? I'm glad I wouldn't be around to see that.

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59b708ed25afcc79f4729038/master/pass/t-Blade-Runner-1982.jpg

Already exists: https://www.turnitin.com/

 

[gunhilltrain]

Already exists: https://www.turnitin.com/

Oh, the test. I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[gunhilltrain]

That is certainly the question I asked myself when reading the piece.

My personal gut feel was that when trying to write a *good* story, starting with a bunch of passable gray-goo text is not a great help, and quite possibly a hindrance on the path to actually reaching high quality prose. But who knows, maybe it depends on your work style

One way to think of it: if you don't write some mediocre or even bad stuff yourself, on your own initiative, you'll never learn anything about writing.

 

[gunhilltrain]

This is the right attitude. Back when I was in high school, electronic calculators were just becoming affordable to the average person. Teachers were UP IN ARMS about not letting students use calculators in class. They aren't really learning math! They are just pushing buttons!! Nowadays we realize that calculators are just tools that allow humans to use their own internal abilities more efficiently than without them. Maybe we aren't as good at multiplication tables as we used to be, but we get the work done a lot quicker.

AI will end up being the same: just a tool to let a competent person do a task more efficiently. Universities will need to accept that students are going to use it, and make that part of the "new normal." Just teach them how to use them in the best way possible.

There was something I forgot to mention. Every technological advance has a cost. Like people can't read or navigate using maps any longer. Their GPS tells them what to do. When I occasionally take a car service or Uber now (very occasionally), I'm amazed that the driver's phone tells him (or maybe her) everything that needs to be known. I still have the habit of saying, "It's the brown building halfway up the next block." Of course, he already knows that by having the building address.

 

[gunhilltrain]

...two weeks on a 2k word story? Ummmmm...

It's taking me three weeks to write a 3K word non-fiction essay. I underestimated how much research I had to do. Also, I'm not a machine. If I only feel like writing two paragraphs on a certain day, that's what I'll do.

 

[Voboy]

There was something I forgot to mention. Every technological advance has a cost. Like people can't read or navigate using maps any longer. Their GPS tells them what to do.

This means lost brain function.

The idea is that if we don't "waste" brainpower on navigation, or arithmetic, or (now) writing, we free up mental resources for other things. Most of the time, this is false; our brain is more likely to simply prune away those unused neurons, especially during adolescence.

There is a definite cost, but it's not obvious. Because it's deferred, and also because you'll never know what it is. You'll simply be a less capable person, cognitively, down the road than you would have been otherwise. That's impossible to quantify... but it exists.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting head to head that went about as I expected

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/opinion/beach-read-ai.html

Yeah, halfway through the first story I knew which one was the human-written one.

...two weeks on a 2k word story? Ummmmm...

Nothing in there says she spent two weeks solid working on this story. Just that she made a start on it more than a week before she got the prompts, and that some of that time was asking contacts for into on a couple of things and getting feedback on a draft version, both of which would've involved waiting for people to get back to her.

I've seen other authors mention books that were written at 50 words a day, in between other projects.

Maybe I'm the lone bird here that doesn't agree that AI is good. It often has logicless sentences and happenings. It repeats phrases, overuses the physical attributes of characters, has unimportant characters appear gives them names, and have meaningful moments, and then vanish, never to be mentioned again.

Definitely not alone in that opinion.

 

[HordHolm]

MillieDynamite said:
Maybe I'm the lone bird here that doesn't agree that AI is good. It often has logicless sentences and happenings. It repeats phrases, overuses the physical attributes of characters, has unimportant characters appear gives them names, and have meaningful moments, and then vanish, never to be mentioned again.

Definitely not alone in that opinion.

Yes, but, if we go back to the OP, is AI better than a 20-year-old undergrad at writing a college essay? And the answer to that question, rather than 'can it write good fiction?' is very often a qualified 'yes'.

 

[MillieDynamite]

That would be true, at least part of the time. Some 20-year-olds write exceedingly well, while others write incredibly bad.

Yes, but, if we go back to the OP, is AI better than a 20-year-old undergrad at writing a college essay? And the answer to that question, rather than 'can it write good fiction?' is very often a qualified 'yes'.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Well, you all know what I think about AI (for writing or running the world) and it isn't something I want to happen.

Most science fiction that portrays powerful AI computers - although it wasn't called that yet - are cautionary tales about the computers challenging humans and taking over. That was the plot way back in 1970 with Colossus: The Forbin Project. The same theme comes up with Skynet in the various Terminator movies. The replicants in Blade Runner qualify as AI. They are not a single super computer (or does the Tyrell Corporation possess one?) but they are rebellious enough that they constantly have to be monitored and sometimes killed.

So I wouldn't want to see it either, although I don't know if that kind of technological power is obtainable anytime soon.

 

[gunhilltrain]

That would be true, at least part of the time. Some 20-year-olds write exceedingly well, while others write incredibly bad.

I think I mentioned that most student essays, at least at the undergraduate level, are rather bland. I really don't remember too well, but I'd write maybe only one every year that anybody but the professor would want to read.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, but, if we go back to the OP, is AI better than a 20-year-old undergrad at writing a college essay? And the answer to that question, rather than 'can it write good fiction?' is very often a qualified 'yes'.

...which leaves me feeling that we ought to be holding 20-year-old undergrads to a higher standard.

(But that would require a lot of investment in education and work to repair the damage done by decades of neglect, and who wants to do that?)

 

[Bamagan]

So it sounds like there's almost a consensus. Current LLM AIs are roughly as good at writing short essays that make professors cringe as young adults who have received rudimentary training in the composition of essays by educational systems that are often underfunded and focused on other skills (and many of the kids probably aren't frequently very interested in the essay topics assigned to begin with).
This is both sad and not hugely impressive in context.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

...which leaves me feeling that we ought to be holding 20-year-old undergrads to a higher standard.

Would not undergrads be ~1 standard deviation above the mean writer? About 40% pf 18-24 year olds are in college. Sure, we can want better, but there isn't much of a pool of better out there.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, most people who worry about AI are computer scientists, which is what makes me nervous about it. Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury both wrote about AI run amok to warn those working on it and future generations of the public just how wrong things might go if computers and artificial lifeforms (androids or master/quantum computers) started to design themselves. Boring academic writing is a given. Have you ever read an interesting instruction manual on how to build a piece of furniture? Me either. Jo doesn't even read them; she just looks at the pictures and builds them.

Most science fiction that portrays powerful AI computers - although it wasn't called that yet - are cautionary tales about the computers challenging humans and taking over. That was the plot way back in 1970 with Colossus: The Forbin Project. The same theme comes up with Skynet in the various Terminator movies. The replicants in Blade Runner qualify as AI. They are not a single super computer (or does the Tyrell Corporation possess one?) but they are rebellious enough that they constantly have to be monitored and sometimes killed.

So I wouldn't want to see it either, although I don't know if that kind of technological power is obtainable anytime soon.

I think I mentioned that most student essays, at least at the undergraduate level, are rather bland. I really don't remember too well, but I'd write maybe only one every year that anybody but the professor would want to read.

 

[summer_reine]

Here's a weird take.. if AI is scraping data from us isn't it like we are writing the stories in a way? And if it becomes really good at stories we'll have a lot more really good stories to read. Seems like we want humans to be the only creators, which makes sense until/unless AI gains true sentience. On the other hand there's an apt meme I keep seeing going around..

'I want AI to do my dishes so I can write and draw, not the other way around.'

 

[djrip]

Most science fiction that portrays powerful AI computers - although it wasn't called that yet - are cautionary tales about the computers challenging humans and taking over. That was the plot way back in 1970 with Colossus: The Forbin Project. The same theme comes up with Skynet in the various Terminator movies. The replicants in Blade Runner qualify as AI. They are not a single super computer (or does the Tyrell Corporation possess one?) but they are rebellious enough that they constantly have to be monitored and sometimes killed.

So I wouldn't want to see it either, although I don't know if that kind of technological power is obtainable anytime soon.

I would say the replicants are human. The test that detects them is an empathy test. Tyrell says they have to be destroyed by 4 years of age because they begin to develop empathy and thus become impossible to differentiate from humans. Human children also develop empathy around 4 years old. Replicants are children in adult vat-grown bodies, perhaps. A created slave race. It makes sense that some realize this and rebel.

I think this gets at an important point. HAL and Skynet are warnings about AI, yes. But I believe Blade Runner is about our tendency to 'other' people. To find some way to think of them as not people, and thus not feel bad about using and destroying them.

 

[Codoc24]

As a writer, I hope AI doesn't replace me. But throughout time, advancements have made jobs disappear. Like cars replacing horses made blacksmiths few and far between. In the late '80s, I worked for a printing company (not a book publisher) and the advent of the PC made that company go under. We had a large/expensive mainframe to do our typesetting and graphics. Fortunately for me, I saw what was happening and changed jobs before they went under.

Perhaps, someday, it will be like the CD and vinyl record wars and co-exist. Stories written by AI will legally be required to identify themselves as AI-created. Then, readers will choose to support real, living, breathing authors or not. Like Amazon is currently doing with audiobooks. They have a notice that the audio was AI-generated.

 

[MillieDynamite]

At Amazon, you are required to note if you used AI for covers and internal art, writing, or translations and to what degree. I appreciate that they are doing that. Of course, I guess a person can not follow the guide and just hide that they are using AI.

As a writer, I hope AI doesn't replace me. But throughout time, advancements have made jobs disappear. Like cars replacing horses made blacksmiths few and far between. In the late '80s, I worked for a printing company (not a book publisher) and the advent of the PC made that company go under. We had a large/expensive mainframe to do our typesetting and graphics. Fortunately for me, I saw what was happening and changed jobs before they went under.

Perhaps, someday, it will be like the CD and vinyl record wars and co-exist. Stories written by AI will legally be required to identify themselves as AI-created. Then, readers will choose to support real, living, breathing authors or not. Like Amazon is currently doing with audiobooks. They have a notice that the audio was AI-generated.

 

[StillStunned]

In the "Rip Me To Shreds" thread, someone had Copilot rewrite a snippet I'd posted for criticism. While you could argue about whether or not the prose was better, what's undeniable is that the AI added details that didn't make sense, and removed details so that much of the rest didn't make sense.

If it can't keep 600-ish (I think) words straight, I doubt it's going to write a cohesive story of even a few thousand words.

 

[Kadyia]

I was too lazy to come up with a response on my own, so I had AI write one for me:

AI is just the latest step in a long line of tools—like computers, calculators, and slide rules before it. Okay, maybe I pushed that analogy a bit far, but you get the point. AI is here, it's good, and you won’t be able to ban it. Plus, trying to catch students using it can backfire on those who are actually doing their work.

Teachers should focus on critical thinking, creativity, and ethical use. Teach students how to use AI (because it's not going anywhere), but also design tests that require real understanding. Think handwritten essays, blue books, and so on. AI is just a tool—it's up to us to treat it like one, not a threat. The goal is to create assignments and tests that still challenge students, even with AI in the mix.

 

[Yarglenurp]

As a writer, I hope AI doesn't replace me. But throughout time, advancements have made jobs disappear. Like cars replacing horses made blacksmiths few and far between. In the late '80s, I worked for a printing company (not a book publisher) and the advent of the PC made that company go under. We had a large/expensive mainframe to do our typesetting and graphics. Fortunately for me, I saw what was happening and changed jobs before they went under.

Perhaps, someday, it will be like the CD and vinyl record wars and co-exist. Stories written by AI will legally be required to identify themselves as AI-created. Then, readers will choose to support real, living, breathing authors or not. Like Amazon is currently doing with audiobooks. They have a notice that the audio was AI-generated.

I think you first have to distinguish between writers. When people say “writer,” they tend to mean fiction writer, but even in fiction writing, there are multiple sub-categories.

There’s a particular kind of fiction writer that’s easy the replicate. Modern AI writers can easily replace the churn and burn writer, who quickly puts out work to put food on the table by taking the same structure, altering names and time periods, and then adds just enough meat on the skeleton to call it different.

What is going to be a lot harder are the substance writers. Those who put truth into their fiction because calling it non-fiction would get them sued or shot. Those are going to be tougher to replicate because those writers possess unique knowledge and insights not common in the mass of words. Even if “writing” is their current career, they had lived a past life in the real world and so have an anchor from which they can project a unique voice. To them, things like structure, pacing, characters, etc… they are all secondary to whatever ideas they really want to get out into the world.