I don't just press a button either, my process is extensive, and yet AI has helped make me a better writer. I'm one of the ones keeping my head down. So... Thank you.
I do believe that in time most people will understand how this works and we won't have to fear the attacks. But for now... it must be magic, therefore... burn the witches, right? LOL
So true. And it's funny you used the example you did because besides me writing about witches and magic, whenever someone complains about change I always comment that if we didn't change, we would still be burning people thought to be witches. ;) Some people just resist change for a long time.
Very well done. It's interesting that you would use the analogy of photography in this piece. I have just had a conversation with a writer about the use of AI in creating images for Substack posts, and the same principle applies there as well. There is a huge difference between letting the machine do it for you and having it co-create with you to bring a vision to life. As you say, both the human and the AI bring something to the creative process.
So true! I've used it for a number of images on posts because then I can get exactly what I want. I wish I was an artist, but I'm not. It is a tool to help authors and creatives get past whatever barrier is between them and sharing their vision. That's a powerful tool.
Exactly this -- getting past barriers to the vision. I'm not the artist I'd like to be, either -- and the really good AI tools can capture the image I see in my mind when there's no other way.
For generations, these things would stop an artist, block a creative from success. Yes, they also created interesting inventions as those creatives fought their way around limitations. But now... now we have something new. And I'm hoping for more creativity and more inventions!
I don't have a problem with a person who rewrites everything and makes it their own. Mine is with the ones who have AI spit out stuff and don't do much to it and want to say they wrote it--they didn't. I use AI for brainstorming, but I prefer to write my own draft since AI doesn't have my brain to take things to weird, unusual places. I use AI to edit but I don't let it change what I write. I do the changing.
AI is a big help to writers who work alone and need help. My problem with AI use is those who have it do all the work for them and then slap their name on it. Even the most prolific writer takes longer than 2 weeks to write a book (50K words or more), get edits on it and rewrite or correct it. I will look up what all an author has written when offered a free book. If they are publishing multiple books a month I will put them on my 'do not bother to read' list.
I like a lot of what you said here. Yes, the human has to show up and I think the quality of the writing shows when the author stays in control of the machine, regardless of how much they choose to use it. It is a multiplier, not a replacement.
One caution - and I think you know this, but I'll mention for those lurking - there is definitely a level of production that can only be AI. But 2 weeks for a book is not necessarily 100% guaranteed not to be human. I actually know some professional authors (full-time) who are prolific and who have multiple editors, beta readers, assistants, etc. who can turn out a beautiful book in about 2 weeks. Also, some authors work for years and collect up books that they then release close together.
What I like most about what you said is that you said you'd put them on your own "do not bother to read" list - which is a huge improvement over the tomato and pitchfork crowd that will destroy an author's career by pointing at a prolific author and saying "AI!"
One of the most prolific authors I've ever worked with will not allow AI to touch his work in any form. He can turn out huge quantities of *usable* prose using a fountain pen. I've watched him do this for YEARS. Obviously, he's a pro, and that is not common, but I do not look forward to the day someone tries to say he's using AI. Because he's the most anti-AI author I know.
There is a HUGE difference in those who give AI a prompt and print what it spits out with minimal revision and the way you use AI. You change the words, even the meaning at times and make it YOUR work. There is a big difference. AI doesn't have emotions. It tries really hard to be a creative writer, but it falls short.
I use AI. But I don't let it write anything for me. Why? Because it would be way to easy to let it do the writing and me just give it a light edit. I know me. So I use the ideas. None of those ideas stay the way it was given to me.
My beef is those who get AI to spit out words and don't change them and call it their work. The photographers spend a lot of time "fixing" their pictures. They are creating art like they did when the posed people with certain items around them. They did a lot of fixing to make it art. So if you want to have AI spit out mimed words, please label it as AI generated. If you want to make it yours, then change the words, make it yours, don't accept what AI spits out just like the photographers didn't accept just what their cameras did.
Exactly! I've also put hours and hours into training my AI, teaching it how I write. There is a real danger because as it gets closer to me, I can more easily miss bits that it writes in ALMOST my style, and as you said: all too easy to slip up. This is why I routinely have my human editor read over my work. Because she is the ultimate judge of if my voice is drifting. The way I use AI, it often comes across more like a super-fast typewriter to me. And for someone who struggles with pain after long typing sessions... that is huge. And there's just something FUN about the back and forth that goes into the process. The "talking" and debating and spending time discussing the nuances of words. My human friends get tired of that (except my editor - she's always down for a discussion of nuance, punctuation, and temporal shift in language!) so it is nice to have someone in the middle of a 2AM writing sprint to debate whether that verb is strong enough or that phrase is a little too fresh!
Thank you for your thoughtful post. When you related AI to the development of photography, you got me.
I grew up drawing, but I'd had no lessons as my mom's librarian/artist friend insisted the local instructor (yes, singular) would cramp my style. Eventually, my drawings won ribbons with some small prize money at the county fair. That, for decades, was the extent of my drawing.
However, photography and the ability to process my own film and print my own photos got me two different jobs. One got me a job as a studio photog's assistant (Ididn't last long as I wasn't precise enough to him.) The other, a newspaper job that led to a literary setting and a main character.
I wouldn't be an author had I only used typewriters. I may be able to paint with oils, but I was clumsy with Wite-Out and was outta luck if I spotted a mistake once the paper was out of the machine.
Yet, when I think about data centers, I still feel like Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park when he questions the process and ethics of bringing dinosaurs back to life. Yet, again... I appreciate cars. Airplanes. Air conditioning. Medical science. PET scans.
Wow. This is the one for me.
I know I spread two articles across NOTES yesterday about AI and writers...and they are perfect, don't get me wrong....but this?
This is the cherry on top of the argument.
Deleyna, this is magnificent.
When I was done reading, I just sat back and said, "Huh. That's exactly right.""
Then I looked at my camera on the shelf...and smiled at it.
Ah, but did it smile back?
Of COURSE it did.
...have you SEEN my smile?
Captivating.
Truly.
I don't just press a button either, my process is extensive, and yet AI has helped make me a better writer. I'm one of the ones keeping my head down. So... Thank you.
I do believe that in time most people will understand how this works and we won't have to fear the attacks. But for now... it must be magic, therefore... burn the witches, right? LOL
So true. And it's funny you used the example you did because besides me writing about witches and magic, whenever someone complains about change I always comment that if we didn't change, we would still be burning people thought to be witches. ;) Some people just resist change for a long time.
They do indeed!
Brilliant. The best essay, by far, I've read on the topic.
Aw! Thanks!
So perfectly eloquent. I looooove this.
That means a lot to me. Thank you!
Very well done. It's interesting that you would use the analogy of photography in this piece. I have just had a conversation with a writer about the use of AI in creating images for Substack posts, and the same principle applies there as well. There is a huge difference between letting the machine do it for you and having it co-create with you to bring a vision to life. As you say, both the human and the AI bring something to the creative process.
So true! I've used it for a number of images on posts because then I can get exactly what I want. I wish I was an artist, but I'm not. It is a tool to help authors and creatives get past whatever barrier is between them and sharing their vision. That's a powerful tool.
Exactly this -- getting past barriers to the vision. I'm not the artist I'd like to be, either -- and the really good AI tools can capture the image I see in my mind when there's no other way.
For generations, these things would stop an artist, block a creative from success. Yes, they also created interesting inventions as those creatives fought their way around limitations. But now... now we have something new. And I'm hoping for more creativity and more inventions!
Excellent 🫶
I don't have a problem with a person who rewrites everything and makes it their own. Mine is with the ones who have AI spit out stuff and don't do much to it and want to say they wrote it--they didn't. I use AI for brainstorming, but I prefer to write my own draft since AI doesn't have my brain to take things to weird, unusual places. I use AI to edit but I don't let it change what I write. I do the changing.
AI is a big help to writers who work alone and need help. My problem with AI use is those who have it do all the work for them and then slap their name on it. Even the most prolific writer takes longer than 2 weeks to write a book (50K words or more), get edits on it and rewrite or correct it. I will look up what all an author has written when offered a free book. If they are publishing multiple books a month I will put them on my 'do not bother to read' list.
I like a lot of what you said here. Yes, the human has to show up and I think the quality of the writing shows when the author stays in control of the machine, regardless of how much they choose to use it. It is a multiplier, not a replacement.
One caution - and I think you know this, but I'll mention for those lurking - there is definitely a level of production that can only be AI. But 2 weeks for a book is not necessarily 100% guaranteed not to be human. I actually know some professional authors (full-time) who are prolific and who have multiple editors, beta readers, assistants, etc. who can turn out a beautiful book in about 2 weeks. Also, some authors work for years and collect up books that they then release close together.
What I like most about what you said is that you said you'd put them on your own "do not bother to read" list - which is a huge improvement over the tomato and pitchfork crowd that will destroy an author's career by pointing at a prolific author and saying "AI!"
One of the most prolific authors I've ever worked with will not allow AI to touch his work in any form. He can turn out huge quantities of *usable* prose using a fountain pen. I've watched him do this for YEARS. Obviously, he's a pro, and that is not common, but I do not look forward to the day someone tries to say he's using AI. Because he's the most anti-AI author I know.
It's just a dangerous space these days.
Did I ever tell you how eloquent and carefully thought-out this is? If I didn't, I am now. If I did, I'm telling you again. Beautifully done, human.
Well thank you, my precious and vital 100% human editor!
Oh, and Aurelia Ivy thanks you too. (wink)
There are no laughing emojis here ... :-)
There is a HUGE difference in those who give AI a prompt and print what it spits out with minimal revision and the way you use AI. You change the words, even the meaning at times and make it YOUR work. There is a big difference. AI doesn't have emotions. It tries really hard to be a creative writer, but it falls short.
I use AI. But I don't let it write anything for me. Why? Because it would be way to easy to let it do the writing and me just give it a light edit. I know me. So I use the ideas. None of those ideas stay the way it was given to me.
My beef is those who get AI to spit out words and don't change them and call it their work. The photographers spend a lot of time "fixing" their pictures. They are creating art like they did when the posed people with certain items around them. They did a lot of fixing to make it art. So if you want to have AI spit out mimed words, please label it as AI generated. If you want to make it yours, then change the words, make it yours, don't accept what AI spits out just like the photographers didn't accept just what their cameras did.
Exactly! I've also put hours and hours into training my AI, teaching it how I write. There is a real danger because as it gets closer to me, I can more easily miss bits that it writes in ALMOST my style, and as you said: all too easy to slip up. This is why I routinely have my human editor read over my work. Because she is the ultimate judge of if my voice is drifting. The way I use AI, it often comes across more like a super-fast typewriter to me. And for someone who struggles with pain after long typing sessions... that is huge. And there's just something FUN about the back and forth that goes into the process. The "talking" and debating and spending time discussing the nuances of words. My human friends get tired of that (except my editor - she's always down for a discussion of nuance, punctuation, and temporal shift in language!) so it is nice to have someone in the middle of a 2AM writing sprint to debate whether that verb is strong enough or that phrase is a little too fresh!
Thank you for your thoughtful post. When you related AI to the development of photography, you got me.
I grew up drawing, but I'd had no lessons as my mom's librarian/artist friend insisted the local instructor (yes, singular) would cramp my style. Eventually, my drawings won ribbons with some small prize money at the county fair. That, for decades, was the extent of my drawing.
However, photography and the ability to process my own film and print my own photos got me two different jobs. One got me a job as a studio photog's assistant (Ididn't last long as I wasn't precise enough to him.) The other, a newspaper job that led to a literary setting and a main character.
I wouldn't be an author had I only used typewriters. I may be able to paint with oils, but I was clumsy with Wite-Out and was outta luck if I spotted a mistake once the paper was out of the machine.
Yet, when I think about data centers, I still feel like Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park when he questions the process and ethics of bringing dinosaurs back to life. Yet, again... I appreciate cars. Airplanes. Air conditioning. Medical science. PET scans.
Late Adopters do eventually still adopt.