I'm asking out of curiosity and as I explore my own thoughts on this: is there any level of AI involvement in art creation that you think is acceptable?
For instance, I write short stories (i.e., about 8-30k words). I've done it before AI, and outside some short stories I've had published I mostly just do it for my own sense of creative expression. Some of my friends and family read my stuff, but I am not writing for an audience, at least I haven't yet.
One thing I've experimented with recently is using AI as an editor, something I've never had because I'm not a professional, and I do not want to burden my friends and family with requests for feedback on unfinished works. I create the ideas (every short story I've ever written has at least 5k words in a "story bible"), I write the words on the page. In my last two stories, I've tested using AI to give me feedback on consistency of tone, word repetition, unidentifiable motivations, etc.
While the feedback I get often suggests or observes things that are done intentionally, it also has provided some really useful observations and guidance and has incrementally made my subsequent writing better. Thus far I don't feel like I've lost any of the authorship of the product, but I also know that for some any AI used spoils the pot.
For the above, I did spend time (a lot of it) to make it, but does any use of AI in any capacity render it not worth your time to read it? I am asking sincerely!
AI giving feedback on your story is a few steps up from using spell check or grammarly. Harmless enough, right?
But consider this: any feedback the AI gives us 1) not intelligent, merely guessing the next word based on similar requests for feedback it has seen and 2) always pushing your story toward a more generic version.
Not to mention, there are thousands of excellent human editors out there who's livelihood is under threat from AI editors just as much as writers are from AI writers, coders from AI coders.
I experimented with AI writing tools when they came out first. I was excited by what LLMs could do. Fiction is one place they excel, because hallucinations don't matter. Eventually I came around to the viewpoint that no matter how cool it useful they are, they're not a good thing.
AI is already destroying the publishing industry, and making it very difficult for human writers to get noticed in a sea of robot submissions. There are lots of people out there who won't want to read something if AI was used, for that reason
This is fair, and I agree with all of this. I do think the idea that is pushes towards a more generic story is only true on the assumption that all feedback received is taken, rather than just using it as something to think about. Since I'm not and have no intention of being commercial, the point about human editors or the industry is neither here nor there for me.
I think where I end up on this is that in my limited use, nothing in the end product has felt like anything other than mine because I know how the ideas and words got to the page. BUT: I can't trust that is true for others that use AI, and why I personally hope (perhaps hypocritically) that AI-assisted work should be clearly signed and is not something I want to read. I think a light touch is helpful, anything more is compromising.
Anyway, this all helped me think through things a bit. I think I will continue to use AI as a feedback mechanism, but only after I have "finished" my work so I can consider where I might have done it different as a source of potential learning for the next project.
> any use of AI in any capacity render it not worth your time to read it?
Not the person you replied to, but for me yes absolutely. If it wasn't worth your time to create then it's not worth my time to consume
People like you are starting to describe their work as "ai assisted" but I don't agree with this. It is "ai generated, human assisted". Why would you bother making something where you're only the assistant to the machine? It's kind of pathetic to be proud of this imo
Personally if I could change a setting in my brain that immediately flagged any piece of work with any amount of AI generation in it, I would spend the rest of my life happily avoiding them. There is too much work created by genuine human artists to bother with the soulless AI slop
> If it wasn't worth your time to create then it's not worth my time to consume... It is "ai generated, human assisted"
I truly do understand this, but this line you and others keep using isn't actually helping me understand your position. I spent three months writing my last 7k short story, it was the culmination of an idea that took me a long time to work through. Not a single line was written or suggested by AI (an overt part of the prompt), nothing in the "story bible" was informed by AI in any way. AI helped observe grammar and structure and uncertainty as feedback for me, but it didn't create anything. Nothing was copy-pasted (literally or essentially).
I don't really put labels on my writing because they are again, just for me (when others read them, it's because they ask to, and yes I've made clear how AI aided in editing in the last two). Nevertheless, I just don't see it this way at all given what I wrote above. The fun part is the execution of the idea, I've no interest in robbing myself of that.
But I can also appreciate that given the private nature of what I'm doing, the stakes are lower so believing what I say is easy. If someone asked me to read a self-described "AI-assisted" story, I probably wouldn't want to because I wouldn't know how much to believe them if they said what I said above.