stop asking writers about "AI"
26 points by cgrinds
26 points by cgrinds
I would far prefer reading anything you write, no matter how terrible you think it is, than anything an “AI” spat out.
!!!
It's sad-but-funny-but-sad that NaNoWriMo managed to implode on its own AI-boosterism. I did NaNoWriMo once long long ago, and although I didn't make a complete story and only showed my attempt to two people, I still feel strangely proud of having written those few (perhaps not very original, but very much my own) words. It was a struggle that I would not have had if I had just used a language model, and I'm better for it.
I also like Nick Cave's replies to being asked about AI:
NaNoWriMo
TIL this was an organization and not just a "thing". My first read of this was like hearing that "No Shave November" imploded.
There's no reason I'd think why it couldn't just be spun up again with a different group. Heck, we could do it here like the Blog Carnival
People are welcome to ask me about AI... if they're willing to hear the answer(s).
This has nothing to do with computing or vibecoding.
The “vibecoding” tag is nowadays a catchall for anything that a generative model was involved with. I see so much random crap get tagged VC that the tag has lost almost all meaning - other than I guess as a mechanism for folks to filter out anything that even tangentially mentions LLMs?
National Novel Writing Month revealed to writers how little they actually cared about us with their terrible statement on Artificial Intelligence (calling condemnation of it “classist and ableist”)
That's rich. There has to be a name for the informal fallacy of taking legitimate criticism of harmful actors, and turning it around on those who criticise said harmful actors.
edit: whataboutism comes to mind, but doesn't seem like a 100% fit
In leftist contexts that's sometimes called "weaponized leftism", so "weaponized <argument name>" could work.
Here, best I can come up with is "weaponized outrage" which sounds close to "manufactured outrage" so maybe that?
Please don't take this as a rebuttal in any way, I'm just a little confused by your meaning.
Are you suggesting that the author is demonstrating this fallacy? In that case, the legitimate criticism would be calling condemnation of AI "classist and ableist" and he is turning it around by claiming that NaNoWriMo doesn't care about writers.
AI can’t replace human art, and it never will—but, eventually, our bosses might think it can. They might fire writers, artists, and musicians.
I think AI artistry will go the way of stock photos and stock music. It’s widely available, generic, has wide breadth, but most people glaze over it because it adds no meaning. Some sizable audience would have preferred the absence of stock content, while fewer will notice now stock content is really a distraction for the absence of real content.
With unlimited access to all the content in the world, what tickles the “interesting” is our judgement on what to remove, and our ability to choose less over more.
But “interesting” is different from “financially rewarding” and each has their place in our society.
On the one hand, I can imagine it feels frustrating to feel your work is devalued in this way. On the other hand, I welcome any opportunity to advocate against the use of LLMs and educate people on their harms.
It's definitely frustrating when people want validation for their own use-case. For me, I'm not going to give anyone that. You have your own moral framework. If you're looking for mine, it'll be opposition.
Why is there a "vibcoding" tag on this? It's not an article about coding.
This straight-up doesn’t belong here. It’s off-topic regardless of how engaging it is. That’s my 2¢
I think AI writing is pretty bad, and I do not respect it when people share AI written essays, but I also think this guy is acting like a misanthrope.
Just asking the question, though, is the problem, for me.
When your first thought at hearing about the craft I practice is of a technology that is fundamentally incapable of making a difference to that craft and is created with the goal of devaluing my effort and hard work, that tells me that you don’t value me.
Comic book guy does not get to police people’s curiosity. It’s fair to get mad at someone who insists that you should be using AI. But just asking for your opinion? About something that looks like a huge upheaval? Tons of people are worried about their jobs, worried about the future of human creativity, worried about education. They are asking you how you feel your craft is or isn’t affected. That is a reasonable question.
If you can’t learn to say “I don’t think it matters for novelists” without getting annoyed, learn to say “I don’t like talking about AI” without getting annoyed.
If I tell someone I published a book after meeting them in person, I expect they would want to read it.
He must be new around these parts.
Comic book guy does not get to police people’s curiosity.
Is it actual curiosity though?
As far as I can tell, all these people really want is for me to validate them, so that they can tell people, “Yeah, even this writer I know who is critical of AI thinks my use-case is okay.”
If we believe OP here, more often than not the question is an attempt at validating something that devalues writing, not a genuine inquiry. I feel it is quite understandable an author may feel upset about that.
when people want to read a book, they’re really wanting to read the creation of another real person, and that you can’t relate to a machine.
Is this true? I’m not sure. I used to be a snob when it came to music. “I only like music played with real instruments” I’d say. Over time I’ve changed. If I like what I hear, I don’t much care what produced it.
Humans still made that music, you know, with like, creativity, emotion, and intent, even if they used a computer instead of a physical instrument.
I DNF'ed a novel this week because parts of it were LLM-written. It was like the author write the first quarter (which wasn't bad for beach reading!), then asked Claude to finish it. First time it's happened.
To me, music is a way for humans to express themselves. It is a form of communication. If there is only one human involved in the process (the listener) with no one on the other end (the producer), it feels pointless.
I think this is a good example that sometimes, "the harm is in the eye of the beholder".
"When your first thought at hearing about the craft I practice is of a technology that is fundamentally incapable of making a difference to that craft and is created with the goal of devaluing my effort and hard work, that tells me that you don’t value me."
To be blunt: this only lives in the author's head. I'm not denying that the Benjamin really feels it, but that's a fairly unhospitable interpretation of intent. Everyone is trying to figure out what this technology means and where it belongs in their lives. They value your opinion - otherwise, they wouldn't be asking that. And yes, they sometimes ask about it naively, because they haven't walked in your shoes, but is this really such a profound slight?
As an author, I like talking to people! I'm happy to have a good-faith argument with a human. Yes, we probably talk about AI too much, but you know, if you're trying to make sense of it, bring it on?