#will chatgpt replace writers

[unofficialsherlockian]

I remember back in 2012-2013 ish I was in college and the possibilities of photoshop really blew up.

People were having so many ideas. What if Homer Simpson was a realistic human? What if Luke Skywalker fought the Empire with Captain Kirk?

People saw this and taught themselves a skill - photoshop - to make it happen. They learned art techniques and computer skills, about light and shading and texturing. They learned art, they learned how to tell a story visually.

I remember when my generation of fans got into fanfiction. When stories like Harry Potter and BBC’s Sherlock were long with long gaps, and fans itched with curiosity to see what would happen next. We burned with idea after idea from the potentials of the series about what could come next, what could have been with small changes, what might be in an alternative reality.

People taught themselves a skill - writing through fanfiction - all to make it happen, to see their ideas come to life. They learned about writing, about setting scenes and building worlds, about developing characters and driving emotions. They learned storytelling as an art.

In both instances, people took to art, either digital or traditional, to draw and paint. They taught themselves skills to see their dreams as reality.

In all these instances, loads of people became professional artists and writers, digital artists and designers. Many others stayed hobbyists, but still create the most incredible works.

All of this was inspired by art and all of it lead to people creating. All was done with the most respect to those who came before them and learned alongside them.

Now, people plug things into AI generators. The product is soulless and stolen. It shows no real understanding of concepts. It teaches nothing. They do not learn skills or build community. They do not create.

This is not inspired by art. This is not done with respect to artists.

Anyone who says generative AI is a tool to help them create and make art because they couldn’t otherwise never had the desire to do so in the first instance.

[jisreal64]

Unpopular opinion:

I don’t think AI generated art, writing, imagery, etc should be banned. But, I do believe that there should be restrictions for what it can be used for, such as commercial usage, there are definitely people out there who are abusing AI, but there are also innocent uses for it as well (such as having fictional characters sing dubs of popular songs), but anything outside of personal use or non-profit use should be inhibited. All that banning AI will do is increase black market and dark web activity so people can get their hands on stuff like ChatGPT (similar to what happened with alcohol during the American Prohibition).

[thekimspoblog]

Just got back from a doctor's appointment in San Fran. Didn't take a lot of photos.

Don't piss me off, boys. I'm a walking cortisol factory as it is.

Wrote 7 essays and 3 research papers for school in the span of 3 months

2 pages worth of textbook notes every week for 14 weeks

Finished the term with 3.8 GPA

Submitted creative writing for my AU at least once a week

Somehow did this all without being a paranoid pissbaby about ChatGPT stealing my creativity

[ellipsus-writes]

Ellipsus Digest: March 18

Each week (or so), we'll highlight the relevant (and sometimes rage-inducing) news adjacent to writing and freedom of expression.

This week: AI continues its hostile takeover of creative labor, Spain takes a stand against digital sludge, and the usual suspects in the U.S. are hard at work memory-holing reality in ways both dystopian and deeply unserious.

ChatGPT firm reveals AI model that is “good at creative writing” (The Guardian)

... Those quotes are working hard.

OpenAI (ChatGPT) announced a new AI model trained to emulate creative writing—at least, according to founder Sam Altman: “This is the first time i have been really struck by something written by AI.” But with growing concerns over unethically scraped training data and the continued dilution of human voices, writers are asking… why? 

Spoiler: the result is yet another model that mimics the aesthetics of creativity while replacing the act of creation with something that exists primarily to generate profit for OpenAI and its (many) partners—at the expense of authors whose work has been chewed up, swallowed, and regurgitated into Silicon Valley slop.

Spain to impose massive fines for not labeling AI-generated content (Reuters)

But while big tech continues to accelerate AI’s encroachment on creative industries, Spain (in stark contrast to the U.S.) has drawn a line: In an attempt to curb misinformation and protect human labor, all AI-generated content must be labeled, or companies will face massive fines. As the internet is flooded with AI-written text and AI-generated art, the bill could be the first of many attempts to curb the unchecked spread of slop.

Besos, España 💋

These words are disappearing in the new Trump administration (NYT)

Project 2025 is moving right along—alongside dismantling policies and purging government employees, the stage is set for a systemic erasure of language (and reality). Reports show that officials plan to wipe government websites of references to LGBTQ+, BIPOC, women, and other communities—words like minority, gender, Black, racism, victim, sexuality, climate crisis, discrimination, and women have been flagged, alongside resources for marginalized groups and DEI initiatives, for removal.

It’s a concentrated effort at creating an infrastructure where discrimination becomes easier… because the words to fight it no longer officially exist. (Federally funded educational institutions, research grants, and historical archives will continue to be affected—a broader, more insidious continuation of book bans, but at the level of national record-keeping, reflective of reality.) Doubleplusungood, indeed.

Pete Hegseth’s banned images of “Enola Gay” plane in DEI crackdown (The Daily Beast)

Fox News pundit-turned-Secretary of Defense-slash-perpetual-drunk-uncle Pete Hegseth has a new target: banning educational materials featuring the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. His reasoning: that its inclusion in DEI programs constitutes "woke revisionism." If a nuke isn’t safe from censorship, what is?

The data hoarders resisting Trump’s purge (The New Yorker)

Things are a little shit, sure. But even in the ungoodest of times, there are people unwilling to go down without a fight.

Archivists, librarians, and internet people are bracing for the widespread censorship of government records and content. With the Trump admin aiming to erase documentation of progressive policies and minority protections, a decentralized network is working to preserve at-risk information in a galvanized push against erasure, refusing to let silence win.

Let us know if you find something other writers should know about, (or join our Discord and share it there!) Until next week, - The Ellipsus Team xo

[featdinoir]

using gen ai isn't harmless. the context does not matter. it doesn't matter if vernon uses it to write lyrics or 'just' to get feedback. the use of chatgpt in our daily life is accelerating the death of media literacy and critical thinking - and we weren't doing so great in the first place.

gen ai is a massive polluter, it's an ecological disaster on its own. the energy and ressources used to generate his goddamn feedback and that stupid little essay you could have written by reading a bit and coming up with your own arguments instead of asking the Plagiat Machine, could have gone somewhere else.

the workers paid dust in piss poor conditions to train gen ai models aren't a detail.

the countries torn apart by climate change aren't a detail.

the child abuse material these models train themselves on isn't a detail.

the artists, researchers, writers, scientifics who spent years working only for their work to be cheaply ripped off by a machine that doesn't give a fuck about intellectual property and copyright laws aren't a detail.

the stupid machine that gives back wrong answers half of the time at best, and who spreads false information with no evidence (or worse, actually makes they up) isn't a detail.

the corporations laying off their employees and replacing them with a copycat machine aren't a detail.

the increasing difficulty to find historical evidence and work not touched by ai isn't a detail.

your ability to critically think, articulate a thought, understand something on your own, deal with frustration, find the information you're looking for in a long ass paper, determine what is and isn't a credible source, DO THE WORK isn't a detail.

fascism feeding off ignorance, laziness, and lack of critical thinking isn't a detail.

the 20th century witnessed multiple genocides and wars against intellectualism, and gave us 1984, brave new world and farenheit 451.

it's 2025 and you're actively contributing to the systems they were desperately warning us about.

[generation-of-vipers]

the decline of human creativity in the form of the uprise in AI generated writing is baffling to me. In my opinion, writing is one of the easiest art forms. You just have to learn a couple of very basic things (that are mostly taught in school, i.e; sentence structure and grammar amongst other things like comprehension and reading) and then expand upon that already-foundational knowledge. You can look up words for free— there’s resources upon resources for those who may not be able to afford books, whether physical or non physical. AI has never made art more accessible, it has only ever made production of art (whether it be sonically, visual, written—) cheap and nasty, and it’s taken away the most important thing about art (arguably)— the self expression and the humanity of art. Ai will never replace real artists, musicians, writers because the main point of music and drawing and poetry is to evoke human emotion. How is a robot meant to simulate that? It can’t. Robots don’t experience human emotions. They experience nothing. They’re only destroying our planet— the average 100-word chat-gpt response consumes 519 millilitres of water— that’s 2.1625 United States customary cups. Which, no, on the scale of one person, doesn’t seem like a lot. But according to OpenAI's chief operating officer , chatgpt has 400 million weekly users and plans on hitting 1 billion users by the end of this year (2025). If everyone of those 400 million people received a 100 word response from chat gpt, that would mean 800 MILLION (if not more) cups of water have gone to waste to cool down the delicate circulatory system that powers these ai machines. With the current climate crisis? That’s only going to impact our already fragile and heating-up earth.

but no one wants to talk about those stats. But it is the reality of the situation— A 1 MW data centre can and most likely uses up to 25.5 MILLION litres of water for annual cooling maintenance. Google alone with its data centre used over 21 BILLION litres of fresh water in 2022. God only knows how that number has likely risen. There are projections of predictions saying that 6.6 BILLION cubic meters could be being used up by AI centres by 2027.

not only is AI making you stupid, but it’s killing you and your planet. Be AI conscious and avoid it as much as humanly possible.

[bitterrfruit]

people using ai to generate fics is terrifying because large language models are getting better and better at approximating real writing, for the very reason that they steal more and more work from real writers every second.

ai generated writing has become sophisticated enough that often you truly have to rely on a gut feeling that what you’re reading isn’t written by a human. as @bi-writes says in her post, it’s the same as ai images that just have a certain look to them. sometimes there are specific “tells” you can pick out as evidence, but sometimes there aren’t.

ultimately what ai writing lacks is a true understanding of what is being written.

crucially, large language models aren’t actually intelligent. the way they work is simply predictive text on steroids. they generate words based on the words that come before - when they start a passage of text, they don’t “know” where it will go. this is why sources like chatGPT consistently give incorrect information, it doesn’t know what it is telling you, it is only regurgitating words in a human-like order based on the swathes of information it has stolen from other sources.

one thing ai writing will always lack is a true thought-out plot. it will constantly repeat itself. it will have plenty of adjectives and similes and “creative” synonyms, it'll be rife with cringey wattpad tropes as bi mentioned, because it is entirely unoriginal.

what frightens me is a future where the difference becomes indistinguishable to laypeople or casual readers, especially those who aren’t writers themselves. making accusations is near impossible without evidence and we don’t want a world where real art is dismissed simply out of ai paranoia, but the thought of a future in which real authors are sidelined in the industry because readers are sated by robot-written slop is genuine nightmare fuel.

all this to say, i guess, is human writing can never be genuinely replaced if readers and writers are aware that ai generated work is hollow, meaningless, unoriginal garbage whose very production is harming our planet. or, rather, that readers continue to care that the art they consume is produced by a human being.

i honestly don’t know how anyone can stomach to read or enjoy work produced by ai knowing that there is no human feeling behind its creation. all i can do is hope the majority feel the same.

[animentality]

for my own amusement, I tried to get chatgpt to perfectly write out the novel I'm querying right now...and it couldn't do it, no matter how much I prompted it.

so I'm gonna take two things from this.

chatgpt can't replace human creativity in general and also

i am not like other writers.

you, who have been feeding this boring ass chatbot, are simply not on my level.

[lananiscorner]

Reblogging part of @cerusee's tags here, because they are hitting the nail on the head:

#but it would also be so incredibly depressing to me to be told that the actual *work* I put into writing was so meaningless#that all a reader wanted was something that vaguely approximated me#and that they didn’t care whether I. the human writer#a person with actual thoughts who made thousands upon thousands of conscious and unconscious choices in my writing#was actually involved in the process of generating words

This really would be the most hurtful part about this for me, if I found out one of my readers had been feeding my works into ChatGPT.

Aside from the fact that generative AI is a plagiarism machine.

Aside from the fact that generative AI is horrendously bad for the environment.

If you are a fanfic reader and you are doing this, know that you are essentially communicating that you don't care about the author's vision.

You don't care about the hard work they put into the fic.

You don't care about their personal take on the material.

You don't care about anything they, as a human being with creative thoughts and feelings, have to say.

You just care that you get your content fix.

And if that is where you're at, then kindly don't talk to me again until you've gotten over that. Go enjoy your AI-produced, devoid-of-any-actual-human-connection BS somewhere else. I want no part in it.

This is the worst timeline. (x)

[leidensygdom]

So, one of the thoughts I've been having about AI of late (and the people defending them) is the people who try to defend it from an anti-capitalist, anti-copyright perspective. I can understand that there are AI bros that just like the convenience of cheap art (or even to run AI mills of any kind) and that they're being inflammatory or seeking to make a quick buck (and I hate them for it), but the perspective of "I'm defending AI from a communist perspective" it's truly the one that baffles me.

Like, let's be real. Who is pushing for it? Why is every large tech giant desperate to normalize it? Why are they trying to put it on every single thing you own? Why are they trying so bad to make the investment worth it? genAI is here because really rich people want it. Because it benefits companies. Because it's already been used to bypass any already ridiculous data protection the average person had, and data equals money to them, as they can use it to make increasingly more weaponized advertising. Instagram has been using it to generate images of people without their consent. Will ads simply include your face using their product? Who knows! But this is a massive concern for data privacy (and for consent)

People try to talk about artists who oppose AI as "entitled", "the biggest fans of IP law" and "acting as temporarily embarassed burgeoise who wants to ascend class through their art". The large majority of artists are already struggling to make ends meet as it is. Very few of the people you'll see complain online are doing much, if at all, through art. That one furry artist whose work you love who covers kinks and genders that the mainstream would not understand in 7 more decades isn't someone aspiring to be part of the upper class through they art. They literally just want to make a living.

Quite a large portion of internet artists are people who either make art that wouldn't fit the mainstream for different reasons (too subversive, too unique, too inflammatory, whatever), are disabled/ND people who have very limited options to make a living, or part of marginalized groups that have issues finding more standard jobs in bigger companies. Or several of these at the same time. These people aren't the evil capitalists you want them to be for trying to defend their work (and their livings).

Maybe, if AI existed in a world where everyone had an Universal Basic Income and their worth and chances of living were independent from their ability to commercialize their art, a lot of artists would care far less for it, or copyright, or anything. But it does not exist in a vacuum. The ones who are more staunchly vouching for AI are the actual big corporations that a lot of the people criticizing IP/copyright are usually opposed to. Can we talk about the way these corporations want to use AI to control social media? To standardize misinformation? How you can't generate a lot of things with it due to extreme sanitization? How it will tell you biased information as facts, knowing you won't fact check? How the use of genAI, ChatGPT and so is directly hurting people's ability to fact-check and have critical thinking? Maybe that's the most pressing issue, and the reason AI is being pushed as hard as it is.

Are the people who are at higher risk of losing their jobs to AI going to get compensated? Once companies start culling translators, customer service workers, videogame devs, writers and artists, VAs, and everything else they can replace, will they receive any compensation? No? Then maybe stand the ground with your fellow workers and hear their complaints about AI. Again, it does not exist in a vacuum, and as long as it doesn't, it will hurt a lot of people as companies seek to save up few cents.

But no, let's pretend that opposing AI is always made because every artist on the Internet is sitting comically massive piles of money they made drawing socially unacceptable queer art that gets them banned every other month from sites.

[autisticandroids]

i've been seeing ai takes that i actually agree with and have been saying for months get notes so i want to throw my hat into the ring.

so i think there are two main distinct problems with "ai," which exist kind of in opposition to each other. the first happens when ai is good at what it's supposed to do, and the second happens when it's bad at it.

the first is well-exemplified by ai visual art. now, there are a lot of arguments about the quality of ai visual art, about how it's soulless, or cliche, or whatever, and to those i say: do you think ai art is going to be replacing monet and picasso? do you think those pieces are going in museums? no. they are going to be replacing soulless dreck like corporate logos, the sprites for low-rent edugames, and book covers with that stupid cartoon art style made in canva. the kind of art that everyone thinks of as soulless and worthless anyway. the kind of art that keeps people with art degrees actually employed.

this is a problem of automation. while ai art certainly has its flaws and failings, the main issue with it is that it's good enough to replace crap art that no one does by choice. which is a problem of capitalism. in a society where people don't have to sell their labor to survive, machines performing labor more efficiently so humans don't have to is a boon! this is i think more obviously true for, like, manufacturing than for art - nobody wants to be the guy putting eyelets in shoes all day, and everybody needs shoes, whereas a lot of people want to draw their whole lives, and nobody needs visual art (not the way they need shoes) - but i think that it's still true that in a perfect world, ai art would be a net boon, because giving people without the skill to actually draw the ability to visualize the things they see inside their head is... good? wider access to beauty and the ability to create it is good? it's not necessary, it's not vital, but it is cool. the issue is that we live in a society where that also takes food out of people's mouths.

but the second problem is the much scarier one, imo, and it's what happens when ai is bad. in the current discourse, that's exemplified by chatgpt and other large language models. as much hand-wringing as there has been about chatgpt replacing writers, it's much worse at imitating human-written text than, say, midjourney is at imitating human-made art. it can imitate style well, which means that it can successfully replace text that has no meaningful semantic content - cover letters, online ads, clickbait articles, the kind of stuff that says nothing and exists to exist. but because it can't evaluate what's true, or even keep straight what it said thirty seconds ago, it can't meaningfully replace a human writer. it will honestly probably never be able to unless they change how they train it, because the way LLMs work is so antithetical to how language and writing actually works.

the issue is that people think it can. which means they use it to do stuff it's not equipped for. at best, what you end up with is a lot of very poorly written children's books selling on amazon for $3. this is a shitty scam, but is mostly harmless. the behind the bastards episode on this has a pretty solid description of what that looks like right now, although they also do a lot of pretty pointless fearmongering about the death of art and the death of media literacy and saving the children. (incidentally, the "comics" described demonstrate the ways in which ai art has the same weaknesses as ai text - both are incapable of consistency or narrative. it's just that visual art doesn't necessarily need those things to be useful as art, and text (often) does). like, overall, the existence of these kids book scams are bad? but they're a gnat bite.

to find the worst case scenario of LLM misuse, you don't even have to leave the amazon kindle section. you don't even have to stop looking at scam books. all you have to do is change from looking at kids books to foraging guides. i'm not exaggerating when i say that in terms of texts whose factuality has direct consequences, foraging guides are up there with building safety regulations. if a foraging guide has incorrect information in it, people who use that foraging guide will die. that's all there is to it. there is no antidote to amanita phalloides poisoning, only supportive care, and even if you survive, you will need a liver transplant.

the problem here is that sometimes it's important for text to be factually accurate. openart isn't marketed as photographic software, and even though people do use it to lie, they have also been using photoshop to do that for decades, and before that it was scissors and paintbrushes. chatgpt and its ilk are sometimes marketed as fact-finding software, search engine assistants and writing assistants. and this is dangerous. because while people have been lying intentionally for decades, the level of misinformation potentially provided by chatgpt is unprecedented. and then there are people like the foraging book scammers who aren't lying on purpose, but rather not caring about the truth content of their output. obviously this happens in real life - the kids book scam i mentioned earlier is just an update of a non-ai scam involving ghostwriters - but it's much easier to pull off, and unlike lying for personal gain, which will always happen no matter how difficult it is, lying out of laziness is motivated by, well, the ease of the lie.* if it takes fifteen minutes and a chatgpt account to pump out fake foraging books for a quick buck, people will do it.

*also part of this is how easy it is to make things look like high effort professional content - people who are lying out of laziness often do it in ways that are obviously identifiable, and LLMs might make it easier to pass basic professionalism scans.

and honestly i don't think LLMs are the biggest problem that machine learning/ai creates here. while the ai foraging books are, well, really, really bad, most of the problem content generated by chatgpt is more on the level of scam children's books. the entire time that the internet has been shitting itself about ai art and LLM's i've been pulling my hair out about the kinds of priorities people have, because corporations have been using ai to sort the resumes of job applicants for years, and it turns out the ai is racist. there are all sorts of ways machine learning algorithms have been integrated into daily life over the past decade: predictive policing, self-driving cars, and even the youtube algorithm. and all of these are much more dangerous (in most cases) than chatgpt. it makes me insane that just because ai art and LLMs happen to touch on things that most internet users are familiar with the working of, people are freaking out about it because it's the death of art or whatever, when they should have been freaking out about the robot telling the cops to kick people's faces in.

(not to mention the environmental impact of all this crap.)

[wenevergotusedtoegypt]

My boss's work history has had a lot to do with writing, but I have come to the conclusion that she is just not a "writer" per se. I have tried to explain to her multiple times that it is much easier for me to write something good from scratch than to get something meh at best from ChatGPT (or a poor writer) and try too make it good, but she doesn't get it. What she gave me is just so crap. I made changes but it still isn't nearly as good as if I had just taken that original piece and fixed it up with her desired changes, nor can it ever be because fixing ChatGPT's abysmally poor writing would essentially require starting from scratch.

There's something really rich about my boss, who says she doesn't need my writing skills because AI, taking my writing from last year, putting it through ChatGPT, and then asking me to clean it up for her.

[oneaichat]

How Authors Can Use AI to Improve Their Writing Style

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way authors approach writing, offering tools to refine style, enhance creativity, and boost productivity. By leveraging AI writing assistant authors can improve their craft in various ways.

1. Grammar and Style Enhancement

AI writing tools like Grammarly, ProWritingAid, and Hemingway Editor help authors refine their prose by correcting grammar, punctuation, and style inconsistencies. These tools offer real-time suggestions to enhance readability, eliminate redundancy, and maintain a consistent tone.

2. Idea Generation and Inspiration

AI can assist in brainstorming and overcoming writer’s block. Platforms like OneAIChat, ChatGPT and Sudowrite provide writing prompts, generate story ideas, and even suggest plot twists. These AI systems analyze existing content and propose creative directions, helping authors develop compelling narratives.

3. Improving Readability and Engagement

AI-driven readability analyzers assess sentence complexity and suggest simpler alternatives. Hemingway Editor, for example, highlights lengthy or passive sentences, making writing more engaging and accessible. This ensures clarity and impact, especially for broader audiences.

4. Personalizing Writing Style

AI-powered tools can analyze an author's writing patterns and provide personalized feedback. They help maintain a consistent voice, ensuring that the writer’s unique style remains intact while refining structure and coherence.

5. Research and Fact-Checking

AI-powered search engines and summarization tools help authors verify facts, gather relevant data, and condense complex information quickly. This is particularly useful for non-fiction writers and journalists who require accuracy and efficiency.

Conclusion

By integrating AI into their writing process, authors can enhance their style, improve efficiency, and foster creativity. While AI should not replace human intuition, it serves as a valuable assistant, enabling writers to produce polished and impactful content effortlessly.

[glitchedoutpxie]

Unpopular Take #7

Rant: ai prompters are winning.

Just found a fairly popular writing account with works that are so painfully clearly ChatGPT copy-pastes. The pattern is there. The sentence structures, the overuse of emotional intensifiers, the repetitive flat metaphors, "like prayer" "like a whisper" "like a secret". It's almost impressive to see an ai-writer be so unbothered about making the writing "sound human" and even more impressive the amount of comments praising and believing this is actually human authorship.

Look, I get it. The use of AI is becoming inevitable in the entertainment industry. I'm not anti-AI. I'm flexible. I'm open-minded. I'm all for AI assistance within boundaries. If you use it for an outline, to brainstorm, to fight writer's block? Cool. As long as the final content was written using your own words, in your personal style that you took years to develop, under your own unique creative vision.

But when you're copy-pasting whole chapters without even bothering to edit? That's not writing. That's content-farming. Not cool.

And to see so many people believing these copy-pastes are human? That is just sad. Please educate yourselves. Don't jump on AI hate trends blindly. Use AI writing tools. See why it can't, and will never, replace authentic human writing. Study the difference. Learn how to distinguish algorithmic mimicry from actual human creativity. How do you expect to combat frauds if you can't even tell the difference? We're praising the very people we should be hunting down. Lead with curiosity, not disdain.

I will not be exposing the account, only that it's in the TMNT fandom. But if they do ever see this blog, please do better. Read a book or two. Value authenticity. At the very least, be transparent about the source of your writing. You have fans who genuinely look up to you. Is a temporary ego boost really worth lying to them? :(

[whumperless-whump-event]

Hi, the whumperless whump event sounds really cool, it’s my favourite kind of whump to read and write! and the prompts look really interesting. I’d really like to take part in the event and I just wondered if it would be ok to use AI as a spell checker or to help with background research for a story? (It would still be me writing the story). I have a personal AI use disclaimer on my AO3 profile and now I share in the author’s notes of each fic how I’ve used AI in the story, for example those reasons above, just for transparency and to show how AI can be used as a tool to support writing rather than replacing the writer. I saw on your rules that you’d put no AI so I wanted to check. Thanks for organising the event.

Hey! Thank you for submitting this ask.

AI can be useful as a tool. However, we're talking about generative artificial intelligence, specifically OpenAI, ChatGPT and similar models, which have a specific host of issues:

It's consistently proven to be untrustworthy, including misinforming users;

"Training" a generative AI model commonly steals from artists, scrapes online works, and compiles creations without consent, which is copyright infringement and theft;

GenAI replaces actions that foster community, such as beta reading and group research.

The reason I ban AI in this event isn't to deprive someone from a tool that can assist them with things they struggle on, or saving time.

I ban it because GenAI's required training scrapes the internet for art and writing without permission, and because its answers cannot be guaranteed trustworthy, regardless of the training. As for the third point, I'd be the last person to say editing or revising is an enjoyable way to spend my time, but I do think GenAI is a replacement, not an invention, and alternatives without these issues existed before GenAI did.

This is, unfortunately, a soapbox. I understand why GenAI is used in these situations. I also see that you did not ask for me to try and convince you not to use AI, so I apologize for restating what you've probably heard a thousand times.

However, for the spirit of the event, and for the sake of fostering community and human connection in creative spaces, I will not allow GenAI to be used.

Thank you for asking kindly, and I hope this doesn't deter you from participating.

[inspirationallybored]

Just a little frustration, but mostly confusion.

(This post is about Generative AI, and I am against its use in creative aspects, but I have a question, so please be respectful).

So, my mom, an English language and literature professor, someone who writes for leisure, someone who loves reading and writing, had decided to write a book of her own comprising of short stories, and once she got the hang of it, publish some books for children and teenagers.

Amazing idea, right?

Well, yes actually. I was joyous to hear it.

Until she told me that she would be using ChatGPT to find the ideas and the baseline for the plot. Of course, she would be changing the actual story flow and the language, but the starting point would be generative AI.

And like, I don't know. I was mad initially (I didn't tell her tho), because it's gen AI, and I have always been against that. I'd rather write down my cringe worthy, indulgent, barely coherent fever dream than even look at ChatGPT.

But here's the thing. I also like to use writing prompts on Tumblr and YouTube as a writing exercise when I'm out of inspiration. Sure, the interpretation is all mine, but so is hers. What's the difference between using a writing prompt from Tumblr and using ChatGPT for a story idea?

I usually procrastinate and spend weeks falling into a rabbit hole on language trade because I was naming one small country with no significance whatsoever, or learn how names affect personalities while naming a minor character. But I also know that people use gen AI to look for names to avoid falling into this very same problem. One of my irl writer friends (who has ADHD btw) used gen AI just to start off on finding a name for this Eldritch DnD world. The name he chooses later is his own mix-and-match, and the concept itself, down to the intricate details, are all his. He didn't rely on ChatGPT for anything except for finding the starting point for a name. And I'm ok with that to be fair, in fact I would love to be able to find a starting point instead of roaming around too (it's a different thing that my experience there has been less than satisfactory).

Some people use gen AI to organise their mess of ideas. Some use it to find an exact word. Some use it as their personal stenographer (actually it's just one person who did that, copying from Google Docs is a pain, so she just sent screenshots to ChatGPT and had it type out for easier transferring to other platforms). And I can understand that.

Of course, if you are using AI to write a story, idea and all, and only tweak a couple of things in there, that's just trash, I condemn that. Using AI to write for you is disrespectful to the vast imagination of the human mind, and to the efforts of people who put in the hard work to create and build an idea into a piece of art.

But now I don't know this: Why am I angry at the usage of an idea from ChatGPT to create a story using your own words, when writing inspiration and prompts are fine? Why can't I use gen AI to look for a word even though I am using Google for the exact same purpose? Where do I draw the line between ChatGPT as a tool, and it as a replacement for creativity?

And before anyone says otherwise, I am strictly against AI for usage in creative writing, or any creative work. I just want to understand nuance instead of being steadfastly stuck on a black and white view.