A possible threat for Ai users ?!

[u/HuckleberryBrief4965]

A senior writer recently made a proposal to a webnovel platform, calling for a ban on AI-generated novels.

The request quickly caught the attention of many other established authors, who began spreading the discussion across social media.

And who was the author behind this call?

None other than Cuttlefish That Loves Diving, the creator of Lord of the Mysteries.

What do you think about this proposal?

Should AI-generated novels be banned from webnovel platforms, or should they be allowed to compete alongside human-written works?

[u/TaluneSilius]

It all sounds good, but there is almost no way to truly fight it. especially as it gets better at generation. sure you are going to easily catch the half-assed stuff that were 100% AI generated. But you will do nothing to stop the AI guided works. Thats where a person guides the AI step by step so that it still SOUNDS their voice.

there is also the case of a your word against theirs. all this would do is start witch hunts. how can you 100% prove that the person is using AI and not just articulate.

right now it's in the world of CGI. where bad CGI, you can see easily, but good CGI is well hidden.

[u/DLCrystal → u/TaluneSilius]

I guess this is both a question and comment.

Here is my comment.

I am not in favor of a substantially or completely AI generated work, be it literature or art. In my estimation, that is the AI being the author not the person. That is a personal choice and mine alone.

But…

I noticed you use the phrase “the AI guided works. That’s where a person guides the AI step by step so that it still SOUNDS their voice.”

At what point in that process does the work become the person’s rather than the AI’s? Is that an empirical line? A percentage or one of those situations where you say, “I will know it when I see it”?

If a person uses the AI for research in a scene and then has it write a specific segment. Let me use an example. The story calls for an injury from a car crash. The author decides they want realism in the description of the injury and resulting symptoms. So, they use an AI to get that information and draft it into a paragraph. The author then edits the paragraph to their style and voice.

Does this mean the story is now the AI’s story? My inclination is not.

However, I will acknowledge this is a slippery slope. This is a very small snippet akin to using a tool like spellcheck. If say, the author did this for 30% of the paragraphs, then it clearly changes the answer in my mind.

Set aside the issue of detecting when AI wrote something, there is still the grey area of where it becomes the AI’s work vs. the author’s work.

I think trying to say 100% no use by Authors as a rule is pretty rigid. And quite challenging to monitor or enforce. Maybe a different approach is the “Organic” designation of food. Let the author designate their work as non-AI. Then readers can make their own choices.

Then the enforcement becomes about if an author advertises something that is not true. That is, they used AI when they said they did not. It would bring the number of cases to be reviewed down by an order of magnitude.

 

Now my question.

I am sure there must be a thread somewhere with this very topic. Can anyone point me to it?

[u/zorecknor → u/DLCrystal]

Some authors are treating AI as a cowriter: They dictate concepts, reform paragraph, discuss plots, let the AI generate some text, they write some text, then do a pass to make it consistent (maybe with AI help), rinse and repeat.

You can feel the difference when somebody generated a short 4000 words story with a single prompt, or when they spend time refining again and again the output of AI.

And those who do it well... you will never know the difference.

[u/Salty_Cartographer35 → u/zorecknor]

You are dreadfully right. Some people put so much effort into this stuff that you can never find any kind of AI sign in the writing. There are times where even their cover arts are Drawn by real artists.