A Genuine Use Case for AI in Writing

[mildlyaroused]

I will preface this by saying I've always been deeply critical of AI writing. It's generic, boring, lifeless, and just extraordinarily bad. Do not write using AI.

That said, I have found a useful role for AI in my own workflow (ChatGPT specifically, though any bot would work).

Often if I spend a long time thinking about my novel, my brain gets swamped by motivations, perspectives, themes and narrative. To the point where things become too messy to properly process.

So I treat AI almost like a mirror. I'll open ChatGPT and feed it a bunch of narrative context, then say something like "Analyse this character dynamic, theme, etc." The response, as superfluous as it may be, acts as a facade of conversation. I find that useful for organising my thoughts.

As an example, my current novel contains a deeply dysfunctional relationship between the protagonist and her mother. The dysfunction stems from the protagonist's abuse she suffered at the hands of her father, and her mother's complicity in this abuse.

So I turn to my AI slave and say something along the lines of, "Is it true, though, that there has been no real acknowledgement from the MC that the mother herself is also a victim, and has had no support to help her heal?"

My AI slave will say, "Yes, absolutely - it is true that... blah blah blah."

I rarely ever even gain fresh insight from bouncing narrative ideas off the AI and having them repeated back to me. But something about the fact that it feels a little bit like a conversation is useful. It lets me externalise my thoughts in a way that doesn't involve pestering my editor, or being judged, or having my head explode.

It makes my primate brain feel good when I get superficial words of affirmation that yes, my character dynamics are wonderful.

I'm not advocating for using AI to write anything, or even generate ideas for you. But purely as an illusion of discourse it's been useful to me. It's like consulting a mirror as you're preparing for a date. The mirror won't do your make-up for you, but it lets you see yourself more clearly.

On another note, AI is advancing at a frightening rate. It can generate quite convincing videos from prompts now (election year, anyone?). Here's to it never writing a convincing novel

 

[HeyAll]

100% AI is an incredible tool to help write stories, in terms of ideas, research, and help writing to certain degrees.

It especially helps a lot with research when you want to write about certain careers or locations or things and you need help with authenticity.

 

[ElectricBlue]

100% AI is an incredible tool to help write stories, in terms of ideas, research, and help writing to certain degrees.

It especially helps a lot with research when you want to write about certain careers or locations or things and you need help with authenticity.

Except when it hallucinates and you can't rely on a single thing it says, in terms of the "facts" it presents. If one thing is proven false, how can you ever trust what it says is true?

 

[lovecraft68]

Its still a cheat tool.

How long have people been writing stories/novels? From whatever time that was the problems you described and all others have existed.

Yet somehow, every writer ultimately figured it out and wrote their book and on their own.

This is just a cheat hack for those to lazy to keep pushing, and if its an AI generated piece that makes up your mind, it's not an organically written story.

I've been stuck on book four of my erotic horror series for two years. The last few months I've had people suggest to do what you're doing, feed everything in and see if I get something back that can show me a path out of the problems I'm facing

I told them I'd rather never finish the book than need AI to help me.

You know how when people who have had addiction issues they will often tell how it was just a little the first time, figured they'd try it and they liked it so next time it was more, then more?

Same here. Ai helps you once its a matter of time before its writing your story for you

 

[CalebZhass]

Except when it hallucinates and you can't rely on a single thing it says, in terms of the "facts" it presents. If one thing is proven false, how can you ever trust what it says is true?

I would never trust anything an AI says, if for nothing else, then because I know how it works and that it's inherently flawed in its behavior and prone to making a mistake when I can least afford it.

That's not saying the AI is not a good tool for some things. I like to use it as sophisticated random generator. When say I need a bunch of ancient roman sounding names, I can feed it what I want, ask it to give me 10-20 options, and pick the one I like the most. Same with names for my fantasy characters, or places in my fantasy world.

I mean, when you have to populate an entire continent with cities, the mind quickly dries up and becomes extremely repetitive Unlike regular random generators, that are tailored for one specific thing, the AI you can ask to generate virtually anything, along the lines you specify. It's a great tool for sci-fi/fantasy role playing games.

Similarly it can be a great tool for writing in those capacities, after all, making an RPG story is not that far away from writing a novel when it comes to the plot, scenes, supporting characters or their motivations. It's just a bit more difficult because you have no idea what your main characters will do, so you need to be prepared to improvise, or do a lot of prep work with different branching narratives in mind.

I've also used AI to analyze paragraphs I wrote to find word repetitions or mistakes in tense, though its reliability is abysmal in those situations Also, most AI freak out if you try to have it analyze anything remotely spicy, so its usability for Lit in this context is .. well, limited, or you need to creatively reword your scenes to still make sense, but not be sexual any more.

Its still a cheat tool.

Ah yes.. The "cheat" word. Big word, used so much it has virtually no significance any more. To cheat implies that you compete. Most people here I think are not competing, they are trying to do the best they can to please as many people as they can. Using all tools at their disposal to be better is actually an admirable trait.

I'd argue, that AI has no room in contests and prize events, but regular writing, give me a break. If someone is upset that their story gets a lower rating than someone else's just because the other might have used an AI, I have bad news. There are many AI free ways to cheat that, like having editors, beta readers, etc. Using an AI will not upset that power dynamic.

With that said, what I wrote above is about using AI for analysis purposes. Using generative AI is a different topic and while it's also not CHEATING, as it very well can have the same motivation as I described above, it is still against the rules of the site, mostly for legal / copyright reasons

 

[djrip]

Its still a cheat tool.

How long have people been writing stories/novels? From whatever time that was the problems you described and all others have existed.

Yet somehow, every writer ultimately figured it out and wrote their book and on their own.

This is just a cheat hack for those to lazy to keep pushing, and if its an AI generated piece that makes up your mind, it's not an organically written story.

I've been stuck on book four of my erotic horror series for two years. The last few months I've had people suggest to do what you're doing, feed everything in and see if I get something back that can show me a path out of the problems I'm facing

I told them I'd rather never finish the book than need AI to help me.

You know how when people who have had addiction issues they will often tell how it was just a little the first time, figured they'd try it and they liked it so next time it was more, then more?

Same here. Ai helps you once its a matter of time before its writing your story for you

Mildlyaroused's use sounds basically the same as talking something out with your cat.

 

[TadOverdon]

I've just found it a faster, better organized search tool for general knowledge than Google or Bing. If I were doing academic research it might be useless. But if I know nothing little about a topic the output of ChatGPT points me quickly to a lot of information that I can then look up and verify for accuracy to whatever extent is necessary for a piece.

I've mentioned that I spent most of a day at one time using search engines to familiarize myself enough with Gulfstream jets to be comfortable writing a few paragraphs set aboard one. As an experiment a couple of months ago, I asked ChatGPT to describe flying in one and found out some useful details in under a minute (which I then looked up in the sales materials I'd downloaded previously).

If I was writing a novel about training to be an astronaut in 1962 I don't guess AI would be all that much help, since I'd need to delve deeply into a lot of stuff in order to get it right. If I need to write a paragraph about what it was like to sit in a Mercury capsule for three orbits, I'd go to ChatGPT first at this point. IMHO.

 

[beguilethewolves]

AI is so tempting. It is the new thing that offers people the shiny apple of "I can make it easier" and it might. I would ask, Do I want to make it easier?

I have the same problems as you do. My brain gets muddled with a big project. My desk becomes messy with papers as I jot down idea after idea and I think, "There's no way out, is there? I am going to continue to add papers and drafts until I'm drowned in the stuff or, at least, I'm going to get a gnarly paper cut." But when I'm in my flow state? It's pure magic. Time doesn't exist. Candles are left to burn. What we're dealing with is a crisis of attention, focus, and (I know this is going to come off so bad) work ethic to be better. We accept plastic junk, we accept click bait, we accept four second videos that are about nothing, and we accept AI writing. *leaning on my cane, smoking a pipe* Well, I won't have it. Writing is art, gosh darnit!

Ah yes.. The "cheat" word. Big word, used so much it has virtually no significance any more. To cheat implies that you compete.

I would gently mention that, maybe not in this specific case, but AI is trained on other people's hard work and is just another tool in plagiarism which is why I think of it as a cheat.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't see any problem with using AI the way the OP suggests. How is it different in principle from using a search tool like Google? We use the computer to gather information now rather than physically going to the library. There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't affect the degree of creativity or originality in the work of fiction that's created. At a certain point there's a strain of Luddism in the opposition to computer-based tools in any way whatsoever in the fiction process. It isn't necessary to go that far.

 

[CalebZhass]

I would gently mention that, maybe not in this specific case, but AI is trained on other people's hard work and is just another tool in plagiarism which is why I think of it as a cheat.

I hear you. The legal standing of AI has been discussed to death already and in principle I agree with the notion, that the copyright status of AI generated work is dubious at best. I have my opinions on copyright laws in general, but be as it may, I cannot ignore laws just because I find them stupid

I was mostly just talking about the use of AI as a tool for analysis, randomization and information lookup, instead of content generation. Plus the general tendency of people to label new things cheats on a whim, (the line you quoted) and calling people using those tools cheaters, usually because they feel threatened by the new tech, but for whatever reason are unwilling or unable to adopt it. This is not a literature specific thing at all. It's present in virtually every field, where people can get competitive. Some new innovation comes up and some people immediately cry cheater, just because someone else was able to more creatively interpret the rules or find a loophole they did not find before. Sometimes rules are amended to really make those tools be considered cheating, sometimes the new tech is included in the rules and life goes on.

Every time however there is a turmoil, just like what we see with AI right now. Give it half a decade and it'll sort itself out. My money is on AI becoming widely accepted with some regulation and added features to prevent plagiarism. I also have a side bet on AI finally forcing us to face the reality of how stupid copyright laws are and those are changed to something more sensible, but then we have giants like Disney lobbying heavily against any sort of sensible reform to that, so yea I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

 

[MrPixel]

I don't see any problem with using AI the way the OP suggests. How is it different in principle from using a search tool like Google?

Because generative AI makes things up out of whole cloth when an accurate response is not in its database or there are conflicting sources where X are replicated garbage and X-Y are the right answer, so X "wins". At least with the generic search engines, there is a BS detector - you - that has the ability to vet the results before committing.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Except when it hallucinates and you can't rely on a single thing it says, in terms of the "facts" it presents. If one thing is proven false, how can you ever trust what it says is true?

100%

You:
give me a list of magical realism books set in South America not written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Isabel Allende.

ChatGPT:
Magical realism is a literary genre that blends realistic and fantastical elements in a way that challenges the conventional boundaries between reality and fiction. It is often associated with Latin American literature, especially the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Isabel Allende. However, there are many other authors who have contributed to this genre with their own unique styles and stories. Here are some examples of magical realism books set in South America not written by Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Isabel Allende:

• The House of the Spirits by Jorge Amado: A Brazilian novel that follows the lives of three generations of a family in Bahia, whose fortunes are intertwined with the political and social changes of the country. The novel mixes historical events with supernatural occurrences, such as ghosts, spirits, and miracles.
• Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel: A Mexican novel that tells the story of Tita, a young woman who expresses her emotions through her cooking, which affects anyone who eats her food in magical ways. The novel explores the themes of love, family, tradition, and rebellion.
• Ficciones by Jorge Luis Borges: A collection of short stories by the Argentine master of literature, who is considered one of the pioneers of magical realism. The stories are full of puzzles, paradoxes, labyrinths, and metaphysical mysteries that challenge the reader’s perception of reality.
• The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz: A Dominican-American novel that chronicles the life and death of Oscar, a nerdy and overweight Dominican boy who dreams of becoming a writer and finding love. The novel blends elements of history, culture, fantasy, and science fiction, as well as references to comic books, movies, and literature.
• The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho: A Brazilian novel that follows the journey of Santiago, a young shepherd who travels from Spain to Egypt in search of a treasure hidden in the pyramids. Along the way, he meets various characters who teach him about the universal language of the world, the soul of the world, and the personal legend.
• The House of the Spirits by Carlos Fuentes: A Mexican novel that spans a century of Mexican history, from the Porfiriato to the present day, through the eyes of a family whose members have the ability to communicate with the dead. The novel explores the themes of identity, memory, power, and revolution.

As confident as ol' Geepers sounds, only the suggestion of Ficciones (aka Labyrinths for the English translated version) comes close to giving a correct response. So, as enticing as AI might seem as a research tool, I wouldn't count on it.

 

[CalebZhass]

As confident as ol' Geepers sounds, only the suggestion of Ficciones (aka Labyrinths for the English translated version) comes close to giving a correct response. So, as enticing as AI might seem as a research tool, I wouldn't count on it.

The first two books, when I search for them on google are listed with magical realism in their genre. I haven't read them, so I can't tell if this is accurate, but blame not the AI, if even google thinks they are magical realism books

Is it possible that I'm misunderstanding your prompt just like the AI did?

 

[SimonDoom]

Because generative AI makes things up out of whole cloth when an accurate response is not in its database or there are conflicting sources where X are replicated garbage and X-Y are the right answer, so X "wins". At least with the generic search engines, there is a BS detector - you - that has the ability to vet the results before committing.

There are two completely different issues, though. One is the issue of originality and the other is the issue of accuracy. I would use AI tools for getting information much the same way I use grammar tools, cautiously, and taking care not to rely upon them too much. But in fiction it's not that necessary to be accurate. For example, if I used AI to give me information about Sioux City as a setting for one of my stories, it could be a problem if it fed me bad information. But it wouldn't be a problem if I slapped a different name on the city in my story and just used the AI to give me information for a city LIKE Sioux City. But even if the AI is inaccurate it doesn't affect the originality of one's story, and I think that's where most of the ethical issues arise.

 

[TadOverdon]

Because generative AI makes things up out of whole cloth when an accurate response is not in its database or there are conflicting sources where X are replicated garbage and X-Y are the right answer, so X "wins". At least with the generic search engines, there is a BS detector - you - that has the ability to vet the results before committing.

That BS detector works just as well on ChatGPT if you're not entirely lazy. Until it puts the generic search engines out of business, anyway.

 

[beguilethewolves]

I hear you. The legal standing of AI has been discussed to death already and in principle I agree with the notion, that the copyright status of AI generated work is dubious at best. I have my opinions on copyright laws in general, but be as it may, I cannot ignore laws just because I find them stupid

I was mostly just talking about the use of AI as a tool for analysis, randomization and information lookup, instead of content generation. Plus the general tendency of people to label new things cheats on a whim, (the line you quoted) and calling people using those tools cheaters, usually because they feel threatened by the new tech, but for whatever reason are unwilling or unable to adopt it. This is not a literature specific thing at all. It's present in virtually every field, where people can get competitive. Some new innovation comes up and some people immediately cry cheater, just because someone else was able to more creatively interpret the rules or find a loophole they did not find before. Sometimes rules are amended to really make those tools be considered cheating, sometimes the new tech is included in the rules and life goes on.

Every time however there is a turmoil, just like what we see with AI right now. Give it half a decade and it'll sort itself out. My money is on AI becoming widely accepted with some regulation and added features to prevent plagiarism. I also have a side bet on AI finally forcing us to face the reality of how stupid copyright laws are and those are changed to something more sensible, but then we have giants like Disney lobbying heavily against any sort of sensible reform to that, so yea I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

I cannot ignore laws just because I find them stupid

I do find current copy right law a little odd when it comes to giant commercial entities. Still, I don't think anyone else has a right to someone else's written work. I have had my work stolen quite often and it does not feel like flattery. To me, when AI is being used for writing prose, it seems like it's devaluating the art form of writing.

I do have some questions.

Do you think the use of AI is taking place of a writing partner? Do you think that AI will be used more because we are in a "loneliness epidemic" ? Have you ever reached out for editing feedback and if you have, how does your AI measure up to that feedback?

When the AI says "yes absolutely" it is only stringing together sentences into a semi-coherent answer. It lacks the logic to give you those solid assurances you're looking for. It's using a template to form a response. AI almost always repeats itself. Try replying "I think you're wrong about -pick any random word" and you can watch it backtrack and go a different direction. Wash, rinse, repeat.

To me, and I mean no offense, it feels like people want to write with AI to get the most attention possible for the least amount of work. A literary selfie, if you will. I'm not above wanting attention. I write for an audience. I like to tell people stories. But does it not feel like it cheapens the process? Maybe I'm just an old snob. What do you think?

 

[NoTalentHack]

Mildlyaroused's use sounds basically the same as talking something out with your cat.

Pretty much. They basically described “rubber ducking,” a time-honored tool in software dev where, when you get stuck, you pick up a toy (traditionally a rubber duck, hence the name), and explain your code and the problem you’re having with it to the toy. Nine times out of ten, you’ll stop halfway through and go “Shit, that’s the problem, isn’t it?”

 

[beguilethewolves]

much the same way I use grammar tools, cautiously, and taking care not to rely upon them too much

But grammar is a very limited field when compared to the vast knowledge available on the web. I think there's a big difference between "you're/your" vs. "what plants grow in North America?". I think ChatGPT could handle both of those questions, sure, and so could Google. I also think you have a great point. Does it matter if I mess up what plants grow in North America when I'm writing erotica? I think that can only be answered to oneself. However, I think it's important to remember that Google is a stand in for proper, vetted research and ChatGPT is a stand in for google. A copy of a copy of a copy.

 

[beguilethewolves]

Pretty much. They basically described “rubber ducking,” a time-honored tool in software dev where, when you get stuck, you pick up a toy (traditionally a rubber duck, hence the name), and explain your code and the problem you’re having with it to the toy. Nine times out of ten, you’ll stop halfway through and go “Shit, that’s the problem, isn’t it?”

Except the cat and the rubber duck cannot imbue you with false confidence. But this is a great point. I wonder how much of the AI usage is just a replacement for the 'ol writing partner.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

The first two books, when I search for them on google are listed with magical realism in their genre. I haven't read them, so I can't tell if this is accurate, but blame not the AI, if even google thinks they are magical realism books

Is it possible that I'm misunderstanding your prompt just like the AI did?

And there's the rub.
The house of the spirits was not written by Jorge Amado and Like Water for Chocolate is not set in South America.
@ElectricBlue called it hallucination. I think that's a good word for what it is.

 

[CalebZhass]

I do find current copy right law a little odd when it comes to giant commercial entities. Still, I don't think anyone else has a right to someone else's written work. I have had my work stolen quite often and it does not feel like flattery. To me, when AI is being used for writing prose, it seems like it's devaluating the art form of writing.

I do have some questions.

Do you think the use of AI is taking place of a writing partner?

Not yet. I do believe that artificial intelligence can in fact take the role of a writing partner eventually, but current gen AI is not there yet IMO and there are a whole host of legal issues and risk associated with its use.

In principle I see no problems with taking generated works that is heavily influenced by the works of others, assuming its not a recent work (>10-15 years of age) and its not verbatim. That however has to do with my overall view on copyright and the currently near infinite protection over simple words it provides. A patent that hundreds of people invest millions of dollars in and tens of thousands of hours to develop, that actually advances humanity in a significant way expires after 25 years or so and is free to use for everyone else. Reason? To allow us to advance. At the same time, if I write some smut, I own full rights of that idea, the characters, the scenes, the story for all my life and then some. Insane if you ask me.

Do you think that AI will be used more because we are in a "loneliness epidemic" ?

I think porn will be a big area for AI for the simple reason that it allows creators to make all sorts of weird, without actually having to find people who are willing to put their bodies through that. Written erotica will also be affected, as people will be able to ask the AI for some specific kink and scenario and they would get a story that's custom tailored to what they need / want in mere seconds.

You want to role play? An AI will be able to do that for you.

If we have a loneliness epidemic now, wait until AI can take care of our basic sexual needs, and it will get there within the decade. Its already frighteningly close. So no, the AI will be used, because it's convenient and I think it'll deepen the "loneliness epidemic" you mentioned.

Have you ever reached out for editing feedback and if you have, how does your AI measure up to that feedback?

I did and it's nothing like an AI. AI right now is a tool. It gives you what you ask from it. If you ask the AI to analyze your work, it will give you a breakdown of sentence structure, maybe suggest some improvements, but because it has trouble understanding complex interactions or the underlying story as a whole, many of its suggestions would be useless or worse, misleading and false.

A human not only tells you what you want to hear, but tells you what you didn't even know to ask about. A human is intelligent and capable of understanding, comprehending long and complex texts. AI (as of now) is not.

To me, and I mean no offense, it feels like people want to write with AI to get the most attention possible for the least amount of work. A literary selfie, if you will.

I'm sure that exists and I'm sure many people out there see AI as the shortcut to fame and money. Content providers are full of AI generated crap, some so egregious that you can smell they're fake from the thumbnail or title alone. I'd even entertain the notion, that they make up a good portion of AI users out there. People cheating on essays, having AI generate their content scripts for videos, having AI generate pictures they then claim as their own, etc.

I'm not above wanting attention. I write for an audience. I like to tell people stories. But does it not feel like it cheapens the process? Maybe I'm just an old snob. What do you think?

I'm much like you in this regard. I write because my head is full of weird, kinky ideas and I find it an interesting exploration to actually write stories around them. I write to challenge my use of a language not my own and to be both a better writer and more adept at the language. I share what I write, as I believe in sharing If just one person finds value in my work, I'm happy already. The moment I start sharing my work, quality becomes important and I want to provide the best, most enjoyable story I can, to provide the best experience I can.

I'm a perfectionist and as such, I'll do everything in my power to deliver the best damn story I can make. If there's a tool I can use for that, I'll use it. As simple as that. For me, it doesn't cheapen the experience, as the experience is about writing and not about the tools I use to do it.

Not sure how much of that makes sense, but I hope I managed to put it in perspective.

 

[CalebZhass]

And there's the rub.
The house of the spirits was not written by Jorge Amado and Like Water for Chocolate is not set in South America.
@ElectricBlue called it hallucination. I think that's a good word for what it is.

Fair enough, I was only checking for their genre. Anyway, never questioned the fact that AI can hallucinate, but did a similar search with the same prompt and it appeared to be correct based on some counter googling Then after your post now, I re-checked that and sure enough, it also has a book attributed to Jorge Amado, even though he's not the author, he just wrote a piece about the book, making the AI falsely associate him with it

 

[beguilethewolves]

Fair enough, I was only checking for their genre. Anyway, never questioned the fact that AI can hallucinate, but did a similar search with the same prompt and it appeared to be correct based on some counter googling Then after your post now, I re-checked that and sure enough, it also has a book attributed to Jorge Amado, even though he's not the author, he just wrote a piece about the book, making the AI falsely associate him with it

I don't think it's a matter of false association. The AI cannot associate, it just pulled the wrong name. There's a chance it will get better aspeople correct its information, but I have studied both Computer Science and English and I don't see a way this fixes the (lack of) heart of the issue.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Because generative AI makes things up out of whole cloth when an accurate response is not in its database or there are conflicting sources where X are replicated garbage and X-Y are the right answer, so X "wins". At least with the generic search engines, there is a BS detector - you - that has the ability to vet the results before committing.

Although, even with the "vanilla" search engines we now need to update our BS detectors to consider the possibility that the page the search engine found for us has been written by generative AI. Not that we should ever have been putting blind faith in every hit Google gave us; even 25 years ago there was already plenty of artisanal human-written bullshit on the web. But AI-written pages have changed the signal-to-noise ratio and the things one needs to watch out for.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There are two completely different issues, though. One is the issue of originality and the other is the issue of accuracy. I would use AI tools for getting information much the same way I use grammar tools, cautiously, and taking care not to rely upon them too much. But in fiction it's not that necessary to be accurate. For example, if I used AI to give me information about Sioux City as a setting for one of my stories, it could be a problem if it fed me bad information. But it wouldn't be a problem if I slapped a different name on the city in my story and just used the AI to give me information for a city LIKE Sioux City. But even if the AI is inaccurate it doesn't affect the originality of one's story, and I think that's where most of the ethical issues arise.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is people responding to the idea that "AI" is good for "research" and "authenticity".