Hey hey! As the AI debate continues to run rampant across the writing community, we've decided to break off the half dozen related thread we have under Writing Technology and stick them in their own subforum.
As most of you are aware, what began as a laughably dismissive conversation about generative AI three years ago has now evolved into a full throated debate about editing, beta-reading, outlining, and anything else you can imagine as the technology develops. Agents and publishers are now using AI to vet submissions. To that degree and to what level of success, I have no idea. Bottom line, AI is not going anywhere and is only likely to become more ubiquitous and more accepted as time passages.
To be very clear, the term "AI" needs to be contextualized. There is the generative AI or LLM (large language models) that will write a story for you. That form of AI is 100% STRICTLY FORBIDDEN FROM ALL AREAS OF THE FORUM as it has always been. Your Workshop posts, critiques, and general conversive posts need to be in your own words at all times. If you want a machine to write for you, you are not a writer in my book and need to take that crap elsewhere. I imagine that is a general opinion and still considered taboo is all areas of the creative arts. For now...
Then there's the other catch-all AI term that includes our search engines, summary functions, editing functions, beta-reading and the like. It's kind of like the term "digital" from 20 years ago, which they slapped on everything from cameras to microwaves. That's the AI that is becoming more popular and accepted, as our recent conversations in the threads have illuminated.
Needless to say, this topic is as polarizing as politics and religion, but unlike those, it is very topical to the world of writing and can not be ignored. With that in mind, I'm issuing a pre-warning to all members that the AI discussion needs to be conducted respectfully. Opinions are going to be all over the place. I imagine that some of you will embrace AI's ancillary functions while others are clutching their pearls in a corner that such a technological monstrosity could exist in the first place. Like Red States and Blue States, I anticipate a lot of intransigence on this subject, and that's okay. The important thing is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and deserving of respect. None of you can be right anymore than you can be wrong, so please keep that in mind.
Due to the sensitive nature of this subject, the AI subforum will be heavily policed by the staff. Warning and thread bans will be handed out like candy on Halloween if thinks get out of control. Debate the substance of the position, not your perceived values of the person making the position. Understand before you make a post that no matter what you say, 48-52% of the community is likely to passionately disagree with you, and that is okay. If you don't like what you're hearing from another member, make your point respectfully and intelligently and then move on. There's no need for us to kick each other in the proverbial balls for a dozen posts because there will never be a consensus. Like politics, everybody who is passionate about it believes they have found the One True God and everybody else is wrong. Just walk away into another thread if you don't like what you're hearing.
The one thing I am particularly worried about is the misinterpreting the distinction between the generative AI that writes things for you and the ancillary AI tech that can act like an editor or beta reader. Because somebody favors the latter does not mean they endorse the former, so let's understand that implicitly. For example, a member who favors an editing function of AI should not have to preemptively defend themselves by saying they don't support the other AI that can produce creative content independent of a human. I really, really, really, don't want to see members put words in each other's mouths or draw straw-man conclusions. If somebody says they like the beta-reading function of AI, it shouldn't be restated as "You want to replace all the humans with machines."
In the rare cases where somebody does support machines replacing humans, they are also entitled to their opinions, but prepare to heavily challenged.
The other subject that is likely to come up (and already has) is how AI technology is replacing human jobs in the writing industry. Some of you have jobs in that sector, and while I empathize, you are not alone. AI is taking jobs from every sector, and technology in general has been taking human jobs since Noah developed a new hammer and laid off a couple dudes while he was building the Ark. I know I've used that gag at least three times already, but it is fitting. You are allowed to condemn that sad reality, but it is a reality. And people who believe in the benefits of AI technology should not be accused to of "taking your job." Hate the game, not the player, as the saying goes.
I also want to add that writingforum.org as an entity does not take an official position on this subject or any other and does not condemn anyone's point of view, aside from the usuals like racism, hate speech, harrasment, etc. It is a community of people and a collection of opinions. Without the members, it's an empty building gathering dust. Homer J. Potvin the individual has his opinions on the matter, which I think are pretty clear by now, but the Forum itself does not. And let's refrain, please, from endorsing AI products or recommending AI products or anything that might give the false impression that writingforum.org has taken a stand on the subject. It's too difficult to separate the scams and the LLMs and the tech that steals intellectual property and the tech that doesn't. I'm not comfortable wading into that arena yet. It's not like talking about how Word is better than Scrivner. Not yet anyway.
I'm going to keep this thread open for questions and concerns, but please limit those to how the board works or what might be inbounds or out-of-bounds. Please reserve any discussion on the actual AI debate to the threads. Thank you.
(FYI, I moved a few threads in there already... let me know if there are more candidates. I went by titles only)
As most of you are aware, what began as a laughably dismissive conversation about generative AI three years ago has now evolved into a full throated debate about editing, beta-reading, outlining, and anything else you can imagine as the technology develops. Agents and publishers are now using AI to vet submissions. To that degree and to what level of success, I have no idea. Bottom line, AI is not going anywhere and is only likely to become more ubiquitous and more accepted as time passages.
To be very clear, the term "AI" needs to be contextualized. There is the generative AI or LLM (large language models) that will write a story for you. That form of AI is 100% STRICTLY FORBIDDEN FROM ALL AREAS OF THE FORUM as it has always been. Your Workshop posts, critiques, and general conversive posts need to be in your own words at all times. If you want a machine to write for you, you are not a writer in my book and need to take that crap elsewhere. I imagine that is a general opinion and still considered taboo is all areas of the creative arts. For now...
Then there's the other catch-all AI term that includes our search engines, summary functions, editing functions, beta-reading and the like. It's kind of like the term "digital" from 20 years ago, which they slapped on everything from cameras to microwaves. That's the AI that is becoming more popular and accepted, as our recent conversations in the threads have illuminated.
Needless to say, this topic is as polarizing as politics and religion, but unlike those, it is very topical to the world of writing and can not be ignored. With that in mind, I'm issuing a pre-warning to all members that the AI discussion needs to be conducted respectfully. Opinions are going to be all over the place. I imagine that some of you will embrace AI's ancillary functions while others are clutching their pearls in a corner that such a technological monstrosity could exist in the first place. Like Red States and Blue States, I anticipate a lot of intransigence on this subject, and that's okay. The important thing is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and deserving of respect. None of you can be right anymore than you can be wrong, so please keep that in mind.
Due to the sensitive nature of this subject, the AI subforum will be heavily policed by the staff. Warning and thread bans will be handed out like candy on Halloween if thinks get out of control. Debate the substance of the position, not your perceived values of the person making the position. Understand before you make a post that no matter what you say, 48-52% of the community is likely to passionately disagree with you, and that is okay. If you don't like what you're hearing from another member, make your point respectfully and intelligently and then move on. There's no need for us to kick each other in the proverbial balls for a dozen posts because there will never be a consensus. Like politics, everybody who is passionate about it believes they have found the One True God and everybody else is wrong. Just walk away into another thread if you don't like what you're hearing.
The one thing I am particularly worried about is the misinterpreting the distinction between the generative AI that writes things for you and the ancillary AI tech that can act like an editor or beta reader. Because somebody favors the latter does not mean they endorse the former, so let's understand that implicitly. For example, a member who favors an editing function of AI should not have to preemptively defend themselves by saying they don't support the other AI that can produce creative content independent of a human. I really, really, really, don't want to see members put words in each other's mouths or draw straw-man conclusions. If somebody says they like the beta-reading function of AI, it shouldn't be restated as "You want to replace all the humans with machines."
In the rare cases where somebody does support machines replacing humans, they are also entitled to their opinions, but prepare to heavily challenged.
The other subject that is likely to come up (and already has) is how AI technology is replacing human jobs in the writing industry. Some of you have jobs in that sector, and while I empathize, you are not alone. AI is taking jobs from every sector, and technology in general has been taking human jobs since Noah developed a new hammer and laid off a couple dudes while he was building the Ark. I know I've used that gag at least three times already, but it is fitting. You are allowed to condemn that sad reality, but it is a reality. And people who believe in the benefits of AI technology should not be accused to of "taking your job." Hate the game, not the player, as the saying goes.
I also want to add that writingforum.org as an entity does not take an official position on this subject or any other and does not condemn anyone's point of view, aside from the usuals like racism, hate speech, harrasment, etc. It is a community of people and a collection of opinions. Without the members, it's an empty building gathering dust. Homer J. Potvin the individual has his opinions on the matter, which I think are pretty clear by now, but the Forum itself does not. And let's refrain, please, from endorsing AI products or recommending AI products or anything that might give the false impression that writingforum.org has taken a stand on the subject. It's too difficult to separate the scams and the LLMs and the tech that steals intellectual property and the tech that doesn't. I'm not comfortable wading into that arena yet. It's not like talking about how Word is better than Scrivner. Not yet anyway.
I'm going to keep this thread open for questions and concerns, but please limit those to how the board works or what might be inbounds or out-of-bounds. Please reserve any discussion on the actual AI debate to the threads. Thank you.
(FYI, I moved a few threads in there already... let me know if there are more candidates. I went by titles only)
Last edited:
