Using AI.

[BobbyBrandt]

Nope. I’ve faked orgasms but I’ve never faked writing.

I think I dated you once.

Just once.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Ever try using AI to write a story?

AI is a tool. How that tool is used makes all the difference.

I have not, and never will use AI for writing. I simply don't need it for that purpose since I have the necessary imagination and skills without it.

I have used AI for creating images, much like I have used tools such as PhotoShop to create and manipulate pictures for book covers. I have also used AI as a tool to create audio renditions of stories, both for editing purposes and as final works.

 

[Nynah]

Im not taking money out of anyone's hands by creating a quick AI image of one of my characters to post on social media in an attempt to catch their eye to come read my story. Because there is no money for me to put in anyone's hand.

If you use a generative AI engine that has scraped images from the Internet without obtaining consent from the artists who created those images, it's theft. The images that are created from AI are not "free" because they have been cobbled together from work that actual artists have put out there.

I get what you're saying in that you don't make money from your work. But that's no reason to use something that is actively harming hard-working artists out there by stealing their output and corrupting it into something that quite frankly does not even look that good. You can promote your stories on the strength of your writing. You don't need to add to the huge morass of AI-generated art that's already flooding the Internet.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

Nope. I use AI enough at my work. When I'm crafting something for my own pleasure, i want that feeling of satisfaction that comes from knowing i used my hands and imagination to make it

 

[old_prof]

In writing, true. but it does a pretty good job of stubbing out micro services and RESTful APIs...

It is either just copying something (most likely) which means that it is not really AI, just legalized theft, or, if it is actually creating something new, it is burying hidden bugs in your code that no one understands. Good luck.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It is either just copying something (most likely) which means that it is not really AI, just legalized theft, or, if it is actually creating something new, it is burying hidden bugs in your code that no one understands. Good luck.

Don't need luck, I've been doing this(without AI) for over thirty years.

It's basically taking data structures I designed and stubbing out standard template code that I then have to clean up and implement logic against to make the program do what it needs to do. Pretty much just saving me from typing a bunch of stuff that been written a thousand times before.

I don't trust AI to do much more than that.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I think I dated you once.

Just once.

Trust me, you'd remember.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I understand this argument, to a degree. And I sympathize with professional artists losing work to AI.

That said, im NOT a professional writer. I dont get paid to write, I have no budget to pay an artists to create art for me.

Im not taking money out of anyone's hands by creating a quick AI image of one of my characters to post on social media in an attempt to catch their eye to come read my story. Because there is no money for me to put in anyone's hand.

Asking without judgment-

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit of the nice AI promo image is offset by the negative attitude toward people who use A!? Could you possibly lose more readers than you gain?

 

[Djmac1031]

Asking without judgment-

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit of the nice AI promo image is offset by the negative attitude toward people who use A!? Could you possibly lose more readers than you gain?

I suppose there's that possibility. Probability more likely.

I understand its a controversial thing. And im honestly not out to hurt anyone.

We're all grown ups here. People will decide what they will or won't support.

 

[Erozetta]

Asking without judgment-

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit of the nice AI promo image is offset by the negative attitude toward people who use A!? Could you possibly lose more readers than you gain?

Not DJ, but honestly? Probably not.

There have been some whispers around that seem to point toward women being the most against AI while men tend to embrace it. As long as the images are of scantily clad or naked women then men will be drawn to it while women are more likely to avoid it.

Largely, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it actually pulls more men who wouldn't normally read porn into reading the associated erotica because the work of visualizing the character is done in a way that appeals to them. A photo of a real person has flaws that will turn as many off as on, but the AI image can be tweaked until it is the perfect eye candy for a guy.

See: pretty much every complaint guys have about female video game characters being drawn to look too "real" over being overly sexualized to look like young teens via AI imagery.

I'm not saying this is universally true, just whispers I've heard that appear to hold some amount of truth to it.

 

[Rob_Royale]

No. And never will.

I use it to generate images of characters I've written sometimes to help promote a story. But have never, would never use it do actually write anything.

What he said.

I refuse to use AI, spell check, or shit like Grammarly for my writing. The net effect of that crap is to homogenize the written word so the author's voice and the voices of his characters are lost in a bland miasma of language that's been approved by some fucking corporation.

The net effect is to spell correctly, put commas where they belong and let me know when I've started multiple sentences with 'she'. How does that effect anyone's voice?

 

[Erozetta]

I used AI art until I learned more about it and had a moment to reflect on things while talking to some artists I respect.

I stopped using it after that but have no interest in damning anyone who chooses to continue to use it. People can make their own decisions and it's not my place to be the moral police for others.

But I do think it's disingenuous to talk down one form of generative AI while using another form, which was basically the turning point for me, personally. I didn't feel good about the idea of being against gen AI in writing while using it for Art. To me, there's no difference between the uses and if you condemn one, you should condemn the other for the same reasons.

But that's just the conclusion I came to for my own use of such tools. I basically decided against using any of it in any form because it made sense to me.

 

[Djmac1031]

But I do think it's disingenuous to talk down one form of generative AI while using another form, which was basically the turning point for me, personally. I didn't feel good about the idea of being against gen AI in writing while using it for Art. To me, there's no difference between the uses and if you condemn one, you should condemn the other for the same reasons.

that's a fair point.

im not above listening or understanding another point of view, or perhaps changing mine.

thoughts to ponder.

 

[Erozetta]

that's a fair point.

im not above listening or understanding another point of view, or perhaps changing mine.

thoughts to ponder.

Ultimately, it's your choice and it's a choice you alone should make.

I just couldn't get behind looking down on AI writing while using AI art as if it wasn't an issue. Now, I'm not fond of either, but I'm also not vehemently against them. They are tools, they can be useful tools, particularly when starting out with either writing or art. They can make things accessible in a way that training might not.

I can see that as a potential positive even with the negatives that come with the use.

I'm choosing not to use them for any of my creative aspects because I can't rectify my need for them beyond me being frustrated with how fucking slow it is to learn to draw. (And I'm trying to learn, but God damn do I hate not being good at something immediately.)

 

[Nynah]

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit of the nice AI promo image is offset by the negative attitude toward people who use A!? Could you possibly lose more readers than you gain?

In the admittedly very small sample size I have seen on BlueSky, authors who promote their work with AI art are actively blacklisted by most of the artist community. So that's already a sizeable cohort of people who won't engage with work being promoted by AI art.

I have also seen it said by some authors that they will use AI art to promote their free work but if they were to ever try and monetize a novel they would contract an actual artist to support their work. I have to wonder how many artists would be willing to work with someone who has used AI art before. I'm not saying they don't exist because let's be real, it's hard to earn money nowadays, but this is a pretty hard line in the sand for most visual creatives.

There have been some whispers around that seem to point toward women being the most against AI while men tend to embrace it. As long as the images are of scantily clad or naked women then men will be drawn to it while women are more likely to avoid it.

I think education about the topic (and in general) has a lot to do with it. Men might be the most visible demographic because it's unfortunately still very much a male-dominated world out there but I have seen people of all kinds come around to truly understanding the effects of GenAI on all creatives once they sufficiently educate themselves about it.

im not above listening or understanding another point of view, or perhaps changing mine.

I really wish there were more folks like you willing to listen and consider reasoning to the contrary. Thank you for at least being willing to meet halfway.

I know this thread was started about AI with respect to writing, but it really needs to be a conversation about AI vs all creative efforts in general, because the effects are the same.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Generative AI "art" is not only soulless, but is also bad for the environment and takes jobs away from actual live humans. So many writers have lost their livelihoods because publications would rather have AI generate articles based on SEO buzzwords than pay someone to write it. Likewise, many visual artists have lost revenue because it's so much easier now to feed a prompt into an AI engine and have it generate images based on artwork that has been scraped from actual human artists without their consent.

Not so say all AI is bad; if it legitimately makes someone's job easier, then by all means. But by and large, anytime AI is asked to come up with work comparable to a human being, all it can do is cobble together an inferior product stolen from people.

If you care about the integrity of your work and just about other human beings in general, don't use any generative AI in any creative effort you put out there.

I agree in general. The way AI has become as capable as it is now was at the expense of someone else's talent and work. The AI didn't get trained simply by the wit of its programmers but by extracting the data from the work of all the artists and scientists, without their consent.

But in my post, I was referring to a different aspect of such "art." Some time ago, I read an intriguing poem, and then in order to understand the context, I read a lot about the poet's life, his pain and loss, and the circumstances of the poem's coming to be. Then I reread the poem. The impact it had on the second read is hard to put into words.

So, when we consume AI-made art, where is the pain, loss, the anguish, but also the love and joy that gave life to that creation? Do words bear the same weight if there is no context and no price that the author paid for them? I don't think so.

 

[Erozetta]

In the admittedly very small sample size I have seen on BlueSky, authors who promote their work with AI art are actively blacklisted by most of the artist community. So that's already a sizeable cohort of people who won't engage with work being promoted by AI art.

I've been threatened with being blacklisted for reposting things with AI art in them, and while I get it, it's giving me a fucking ulcer to see something from another writer and feel like I can't repost it without consequences to me and my efforts to promote my own work. (Or my baking, let's be real, I post pictures of my baking and cooking way more often than I promote my stories... Which I'm sure is hella confusing for the people who follow me for one or the other...)

 

[NuclearFairy]

Asking without judgment-

Do you think there's a point at which the benefit of the nice AI promo image is offset by the negative attitude toward people who use A!? Could you possibly lose more readers than you gain?

From what I've seen on the other site I post on (Which has a largely female writer and reader base). Not at all. Having cover art on that site is a requirement, and not using AI art (Which I won't) with all the muscly, tatted, nearly naked men really hurts your viewership there. Because the cover art is what first draws someones attention to the story.

Of course then you also have to have a good blurb, and a riveting first chapter to draw them in. And honestly I'm probably failing hardest at that last part. XD

 

[onehitwanda]

In writing, true. but it does a pretty good job of stubbing out micro services and RESTful APIs...

Until it fails on an edge case at 2am because it's optimising for an old library or paradigm.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Until it fails on an edge case at 2am because it's optimising for an old library or paradigm.

Any edge case or edging failures will be mine to own.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Nope. I use AI enough at my work. When I'm crafting something for my own pleasure, i want that feeling of satisfaction that comes from knowing i used my hands and imagination to make it

So here's another story idea: a sexbot, but it's just the hands.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

So here's another story idea: a sexbot, but it's just the hands.

Now I'm hearing Johnny Cash song 'One Piece at a Time' in my head but imagining it's about a guy that works in a sex bot factory not a car factory.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

So here's another story idea: a sexbot, but it's just the hands.

You mean... Like The Thing from Addams family?

i don't know whether to be scared, or really scared.

 

[NuclearFairy]

You mean... Like The Thing from Addams family?

i don't know whether to be scared, or really scared.

What about scaroused?

 

[StillStunned]

So here's another story idea: a sexbot, but it's just the hands.

Set-up and installation is as impossible as with a wireless printer. It's as moody and capricious as a printer, too.

In the end, the protagonist decides to just have a wank.