Critique - AI or Human?

[Gamblnluck]

A "gut reaction" is subjective. For the example, a homophobe would rate a gay male erotic story lower than they would a heterosexual erotic story.

The big question for you - do you write for people's approval?

Enjoyment is subjective. This isn't English class where you have what is basically a format. Hit key points to make a story or essay complete and it is good regardless of what the content is. I write to provide enjoyment, so yes I write for people's approval to a certain degree. And for my own.
I

 

[MillieDynamite]

No, I don't say what others can do. However, I don't need anyone to sing my praise. Far be it from me to tell anyone they can or can't use AI, except if it is out of bounds by rules. I don't particularly care if readers do or don't like a story I write. Well, I do care, but no one can control what others think about their work, art, efforts, or creativity. Added to that, from research where AI (Google) provides a summary of what you're searching and gets its facts wrong, I have learned to trust it.

One other matter, I used to have beta readers, but I don't anymore. Without exception, they ignored the questions I provided for their feedback and gave me plot, character, or other responses that said more about what they wanted than what I wrote. My editor gives me creative suggestions, and I sometimes take them and other times don't. I can appreciate someone using AI to improve their work, but one can't simply follow those instructions and be confident that it is an improvement.

Should you follow its suggestions and then rerun the new text, I'm confident it'd again find some good things and make new suggestions for changes. That creates an endless editing process, and I have issues with that myself, where I'm never quite satisfied—not going to toss AI into that mix.

Fair, but not everyone has access to people like that. Are they better off with AI or nothing?

Buy me a medium rare smashburger with grilled onions, mushrooms, provolone cheese, and a splash of worchester sauce and I'll "sing your praise".

 

[Nightaelf]

I think we're going to need a word for "fear of AI".
Artilectophobia?
Algoriphobia?

I came across the term AI anxiety recently.

 

[Nightaelf]

I believe critique should be constructive, structured, and something you can actually work with. It doesn’t have to be free of emotion either. A personal reaction can also be valuable. What I don’t consider critique are comments like “this is a terrible story” or “you shouldn’t have written this.” That’s just dismissive. For me, critique should always aim to build up rather than tear down. Whether it comes from an AI or a person.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I believe critique should be constructive, structured, and something you can actually work with. It doesn’t have to be free of emotion either. A personal reaction can also be valuable. What I don’t consider critique are comments like “this is a terrible story” or “you shouldn’t have written this.” That’s just dismissive. For me, critique should always aim to build up rather than tear down. Whether it comes from an AI or a person.

I'm okay with "this is a terrible story" IF (and that's a big if) it is followed by a solid critique of WHY it's a terrible story.

 

[Nightaelf]

I'm okay with "this is a terrible story" IF (and that's a big if) it is followed by a solid critique of WHY it's a terrible story.

That’s what I mean: if the only feedback is “it’s bad,” it doesn’t help me improve. Just reading that it’s bad isn’t useful.

 

[Tomh1966]

Human. The AI would be very good at pointing out grammar and punctuation tho.

 

[AwkwardMD]

 

[Jorunn]

I just ran my Dark Fairy Tale story through Spelling and Grammar in Word. It highlighted a few sentences, hinting ‘these suck’. It suggested using Co-Pilot AI to make them better. I click. It thinks. Then tells me it can’t come up with a sentence.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Neither is being told it's good without some qualifier about why it is good. AI says, it's good, it's terrific, and gives vague comments about emotional, or what the writer was trying to convey. After that, it says, it might improve it to do this, that, or the other. But it can't tell you what emotional impact you wrote a human being will have from the words.

That’s what I mean: if the only feedback is “it’s bad,” it doesn’t help me improve. Just reading that it’s bad isn’t useful.

 

[Nightaelf]

Neither is being told it's good without some qualifier about why it is good. AI says, it's good, it's terrific, and gives vague comments about emotional, or what the writer was trying to convey. After that, it says, it might improve it to do this, that, or the other. But it can't tell you what emotional impact you wrote a human being will have from the words.

Exactly. “It’s good” and “it’s bad” are basically the literary equivalent of a shrug. They tell you nothing, except that the reader had some kind of vague reaction and didn’t bother to explain it.
And what you say about AI is true as well. Still, you can get something out of it, even if it’s only on the textual level. But indeed, human emotion is the most important thing for every writer. That’s something no algorithm can predict. For that, you need real readers, with their baggage, their moods, their strange associations.