Just saw thread where they discussed about banning AI genrated story, so i want to ask whats your opinion on using AI to edit your story.

[SailusGebel]

I wish more people would use AI to look for typos and obvious, not intentional mistakes.

 

[J_Chemist]

I wish more people would use AI to look for typos and obvious, not intentional mistakes.

Is that so your brain doesn't melt whenever they ask you to review their non-english first language novel?

 

[SailusGebel]

Is that so your brain doesn't melt whenever they ask you to review their non-english first language novel?

You're goddamn right. - Sound Button

Click here to play the sound!

www.myinstants.com

 

[TheEldritchGod]

I figure the AI should defend itself.

AI-generated stories and stories edited by AI are two distinct categories, each with its own characteristics and challenges.

1. AI-Generated Stories:
AI-generated stories are created entirely by artificial intelligence algorithms, such as language models like GPT-3.5. These stories are generated from scratch without human input and can vary widely in quality and style. While AI can produce coherent and grammatically correct text, it may lack the depth, creativity, and emotional resonance often found in human-authored stories. Experienced readers can sometimes detect the lack of a human touch in AI-generated stories.

2. AI-Edited Stories:
Stories edited by AI refer to content written by humans that have been reviewed and revised with the assistance of AI tools. These AI tools can help identify and correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and offer suggestions for enhancing the text. The primary purpose of AI editing is to improve the quality and readability of human-authored content.

As for how to deal with AI-edited stories, they typically fall under the category of "human-authored content with AI assistance." These stories are fundamentally written by humans, and AI is used to enhance their quality. To distinguish them from entirely AI-generated stories, you could consider the following approaches:

1. Transparency:
Similar to AI-generated stories, it's important to be transparent about AI assistance in editing. Stories that have been edited by AI can be tagged or labeled accordingly to inform readers that they have undergone AI-driven revisions.

2. Acknowledgment:
Authors should acknowledge the use of AI editing tools in their work to maintain transparency and give credit where it's due. This can help set proper expectations for readers.

3. Evaluation:
It's crucial for publishers and readers to assess the quality and effectiveness of AI editing in enhancing the stories. If AI-edited stories are of higher quality and readability, they can provide valuable content to readers.

In summary, AI-generated stories and AI-edited stories are not the same, and it's important to distinguish between them for transparency and to set appropriate expectations. AI-edited stories should be labeled as such, and the focus should be on improving the overall quality of content with AI assistance while maintaining the human touch and creativity in storytelling.

Where can I read ai generated stories. I've never read one before.

How do you know?

 

[KrakenRiderEmma]

If you want to read AI writing, every chapter of my stories are around 50% AI written, which is the limit for ScribbleHub policy on AI (has to be mostly written by a human, not an AI.) I’ve gotten better at AI co-writing and steering over time, and the AI models have improved, so I feel like the more recent chapters have better quality.

I don’t use AI for style rewrites though — every language model is decidedly “mid” in that regard even if you put a lot of effort into defining a style for it to follow. I find it’s mostly good for nuts-and-bolts execution of a scene, and assembling ideas intuitively. It really depends on which model you use, though — the public ChatGPT models have been adjusted so that they can produce a short story or a single scene on command, but in a way that’s so “pre-molded” that it’ll tend to sound the same and follow the same structures, plot resolution, etc. A more “raw” model is much more useful, IMO, even if it takes more work to get running — it can be a “force multiplier” that follows your own writing style and cues.

 

[Theirl]

I dont see why ban ai made stories. First u cant be 100% sure the story is made by an Ai and second even if the story is Ai made the author does guide and particupate in the creation of the story. The best solution is to open a tag just for ai story and leave for the free market of internet bullying to shove those that refuse to use the tag to the tag since using a tag is 100% more palatable than deleting your story

 

[MajorKerina]

Ironically I found with a well trained and taught AI, is incredibly good at emotional scenes but the problem is once it needs to talk about the plot and develop events it has trouble. It tends to jump for non-sequiturs because it doesn't have the ability to surmise and formulate story. But for very small and focused emotional things and scenes, the AI can pick up on the mood and actually perform better than human writing because it can see connections emotionally and offer improvisation. My main contribution is to provide coherence, focus, and bridge the emotion that the AI produces with scenes that make sense. It's still even with the most training a very immature and under developed creative mind, like trying to teach a first time writer with memory issues but visceral feeling.

 

[KrakenRiderEmma]

Yeah, with the right AI it’s somewhere between having a horse and a smart intern. Horse because it can help go faster, get over rough parts you’re not as good at navigating, you can let it “roam” but you’ll probably end up somewhere random or just grazing if you don’t take the reins at the right times. Smart intern because it’s “read” an enormous amount and has good grammar, can mimic or pastiche, even in unpredictable ways… but it doesn’t yet know how to put the pieces together or which ideas are too mid / cliche, so it needs guidance.

 

[John_Owl]

AI-generated story = sacrificing human creativity

AI-edited story = sacrificing human writing style

They involve different things. For my belief, we has strict rule about protecting and promoting humanity ingenuity so Ai-generated stories have to go. For Ai-edited stories, the verdict is not "forbidden" but is still advised "against using it".

Writing story is creating arts and practicing creating arts. What do you even practice if you dump those tasks to the AIs?

The AIs themselves clearly have no need to get better at replicating human arts. They don't need to. It's people who are being lazy and greedy that want to exploit AIs to intrude the domains of artists to make some quick bucks and fame. This is why I am so against the usage of AIs.

I would say not really. I have multiple bad habits when typing because my brain races faster than my finger's can type. Grammarly helps me catch those. such as overusing commas, improper spacing (Such as "int he" instead of "in the", etc). i don't accept the suggested edits that would alter my style. I only accept the edits that allow my style to come through more clearly. additionally, I have used AI in limited ways. It's a tool. and same as any tool, it can be overused.

But when I hit a block and have literally no idea where to go, AI helps (since asking anyone always gets a cookie cutter "Write your own story!" response, instead of offering help or advice). that said, I never use the lines the AI spits out. but it helps inspire me to know where to go in it.

AI generation is only a devil when overused. that is, when it's more than, say, 10% of the story. less than 10% and I don't see it as any different from talking to a friend and saying "Hey, so this is the situation. advice?" and they give a few suggestions and you can choose the one you like best. but with AI, you never get told off, you don't feel like you're bugging them, and they never complain when you spend an hour saying "Nope. give me the next idea, you moron."

But I will say that I use AI generated covers simply because I can't afford a decent cover artist.

Edit: wanted to add that the reason I use grammarly is because it's fundamentally no different from spellcheck functions that we've all used for years. the biggest difference is that it can catch issues even when the word is TECHNICALLY correct. as in my above example, 'Int he', I've added Int to the dictionary as a shorthand for intelligence. but it still catches when 'in the' would work better than 'int he'. spellcheck doesn't catch that. and likewise, i usually don't either. I'm a fast reader and ADHD, so minor issues tend to go unnoticed.

 

[Paul_Tromba]

AI can be used to edit stories and filter grammatical errors, although it does increase the quality of story, someone who is experienced with AI can quickly catch on whether this story have touch of Ai in it.

But my question is do you see AI generated story = written stories that was edited by AI

And one of popular suggestion on previous thread was to not outright ban but tag Ai generated story, then how should we deal with Ai edited story, what category does it come under

Editing a story with AI is okay, like fixing grammatical mistakes or spelling. Though that is not the same as generating a story with AI. Generating a story would mean making an entire story from AI without much input besides a prompt. No one, that I am aware of, is arguing against AI 'editing' programs. It's the AI generated novels that people have a problem with because it's lazy, depressing to learn that the "author" didn't have the desire to actually write it themselves, and a lot of people don't want to read novels that aren't written by a real person. This is mainly my biased opinion along with first-hand knowledge so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[AliceShiki]

AI editing is fine.

I mean, yanno when you write on MS Word or whatever and a blue/red line appears below the word/sentence you wrote? That's your PC Software fixing your mistakes for you.

AI editing is the same. There is nothing wrong with getting the PC to fix your mistakes.

As long as you are the one who wrote the story, feel free to use whatever tools you want to improve it.

 

[Paul_Tromba]

As long as you are the one who wrote the story, feel free to use whatever tools you want to improve it.

This

 

[georgelee5786]

Tbh, i just don't care. Let AI make art, or write stories, whatever, they'll probably never fully displace human artists or authors or editors.

 

[Succubiome]

Tbh, i just don't care. Let AI make art, or write stories, whatever, they'll probably never fully displace human artists or authors or editors.

Probably true, in a technical sense!

There's still people who handmake clothes... although very few can make a living off of it. They're either specialists, hobbyists, or poorly paid sweatshop employees.

Automation under capitalism does have the general issue that once everything else is automated out, it'll just be used to pressure workers to work cheaper than machines, or workers will have no work whatsoever.

Writing/editing with Grammarly is probably helping it to become better stofware, and fundamentally, as with all things under capitalism, it's a tool to make money, and will be in the end be used to replace writers, force writers into a bad bargaining position, or create new ways to pay people little to no money for their work, if at all possible.

Things like Nightshade do mean it's probably a more complex situation, though, although I'm not sure the tech involved in Nightshade is transferable to writing-- it's far easier for people to notice a few changes in words than a few changes in pixels.

 

[CheertheSecond]

Tbh, i just don't care. Let AI make art, or write stories, whatever, they'll probably never fully displace human artists or authors or editors.

It matters not if they can displace human authors or not. Ai works siphon readers' attention human works. Readers' attention is a finite resource regardless how large it is and how little the distraction takes from the pool. Rather than letting them wasting their time and effort reading worthless AI works, I rather they wasting their time reading worthless human works.

 

[KrakenRiderEmma]

This thread is showing that there’s a pretty continuous spectrum of “how much is AI involved” going all the way from “suggesting a few words to fix a sentence” to “hey ChatGPT write an isekai LitRPG, i don’t care about the details.” (That’s probably the closest to 0% human creativity I can imagine…)

But there’s also everything in between, from “I use an AI to write about 10% when I’m stuck” to 50% AI like my stuff, to the “sudowrite” method where human authors do a lot of prompts to gradually get a story outline, beats, etc.

Personally I feel like the midway point between max AI and no AI is both a good cutoff point for what should be allowed on a site for human creativity, and also is the most interesting place for me to be creative, personally. I’ve always preferred co-writing (with humans too) or doing writing/illustration split with a comic artist, etc. That way your ideas are always bouncing off of other ideas from outside yourself.

In the case of AI it’s definitely weirder because it’s ideas from a billion places, but all mixed together in a slurry, so part of the collaboration is spotting the interesting things floating by on the endless river. But it definitely lets me express my creativity in ways I wouldn’t be able to otherwise, and stumble across unusual approaches I wouldn’t try on my own, so I try to “let the AI drive” as much as I can, as long as it doesn’t go over 50% or drift into low-quality, ideas that make no sense, too bland, etc.

 

[K5Rakitan]

I'm waiting a few years for my son to give me free time to write again. If AI is good enough to help me complete my story by that point, I will use it. It will still be heavily guided by me if I do use it.