Is AI writing assistance ethical?

Does that come up?
Does what come up? Accusations and questions? Idk, tbh. But considering how many accusations are thrown around in my chosen genre and that, when on my game, I can write 120k in 28-34 days I thought it was better to insulate myself from the beginning than to attempt to reverse engineer it and prove it. I mean honestly, if they want proof I'll write on time lapse video, I have no issue with that. It's just... if it were to come up I don't want to have to say "trust me, bro."
 
Does what come up? Accusations and questions? Idk, tbh. But considering how many accusations are thrown around in my chosen genre and that, when on my game, I can write 120k in 28-34 days I thought it was better to insulate myself from the beginning than to attempt to reverse engineer it and prove it. I mean honestly, if they want proof I'll write on time lapse video, I have no issue with that. It's just... if it were to come up I don't want to have to say "trust me, bro."
Basically, yes, whether authorship gets challenged and proved through grammarly. I'm asking because I've never heard about that; not that I would have. But that leads me to a larger question: if agents or publishers see a manuscript that is worthy or monetary renumeration, would they even care? That's kind of the potential AI endgame as far as creative writing goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLT
Basically, yes, whether authorship gets challenged and proved through grammarly. I'm asking because I've never heard about that; not that I would have. But that leads me to a larger question: if agents or publishers see a manuscript that is worthy or monetary renumeration, would they even care? That's kind of the potential AI endgame as far as creative writing goes.
Idk. Perhaps not, but in my chosen genre, the READERS care and they will chuck an author out the window, drive over them in the street, and beat them for good measure. It's ugly out there and, at least in my genre, agents and publishers know that.
 
Idk. Perhaps not, but in my chosen genre, the READERS care and they will chuck an author out the window, drive over them in the street, and beat them for good measure. It's ugly out there and, at least in my genre, agents and publishers know that.
How could they prove it? Practically every word and sentence in the English language has been rehashed billions of times. I know you can copy/paste a sentence and the internet will show you where it came from i.e. a quote from a book etc.
 
How could they prove it? Practically every word and sentence in the English language has been rehashed billions of times. I know you can copy/paste a sentence and the internet will show you where it came from i.e. a quote from a book etc.
The readers? That's just it, they can't (usually, but there have been cases of authors leaving prompts in), and they don't have to. It's the *belief* and the *accusation* that destroys if there's no tangible way to combat it.
 
I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard there's a woman who posts one complete book per day on Amazon, cover and all, and it's all AI-generated. Like, 1, 2, 3, 4...if she doesn't already have hundreds of books under her name by now, she probably will soon. Maybe she sells 5-10 copies each, but she's betting that in the time it takes you to write one book, she'll have sold hundreds without lifting a finger. To me, that's complete BS, and that's an assault on the industry. On the flip side, should we castrate those who use AI for typos, SPAG, and POV drifts? Cuz right now, after exhaustive experience with the thing, I don't think it's reliably capable of doing much more. Deep dives and developmental editing aren't one of its strong suits.
 
If one simply wants to produce a product with minimum effort, training, and/or creative thought, one processes words with the help of AI. Admitting openly that a book is AI-produced introduces a measure of ethicality, though originality and creativity are moot points. Handing readers an AI-produced book while implying in any way that personal creativity, talent, and effort produced it is unethicial.
 
To be fair to frozen pizza and AI, changing your writing to please "everybody else" is also what the majority of genre editors do.
Including music, television, sculpture, cinema... you name it. Nowadays, things like the Knives Out franchise stand out from the crowd because they aren't intended to please "everybody." And the majority of the Beatles's most respected oeuvre was the result of them ignoring what people wanted them to produce, and doing what their muses told them to do.

The key here is that once Rian Johnson or the Beatles had an audience that were inclined to trust them in whatever they did, they felt that it was time to experiment and go for the off-beat and take the audiences with them. But you've got to earn that trust first.
 
Here is a scary article. It's a bit off-topic but in terms of AI's near future...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/morgan-stanley-warns-ai-breakthrough-072000084.html
That's something that has been foretold for years. Investment people think it really started when computers began calling the shots for what to buy and what to sell, taking humans largely out of the evaluation process. There have been some limits since then on the process, but it's entirely reasonable that things can get out of hand faster than people can recognize the problem, let alone prevent it.
 
That's something that has been foretold for years. Investment people think it really started when computers began calling the shots for what to buy and what to sell, taking humans largely out of the evaluation process. There have been some limits since then on the process, but it's entirely reasonable that things can get out of hand faster than people can recognize the problem, let alone prevent it.
If you're referencing buy/sell systems for stock trades, sure. This is referencing AI as a product, and as a disruptive technology. Since the mid-90s at least, watching where the investments go and the financial health of companies was a factor in what technologies to implement and which companies would be alive 5 years down the line to support and upgrade your implementation.

The assumption in this kind of article is that Morgan-Stanley has access to information that we don't, and that they aren't blowing smoke for their own purposes. Given what we do know and can see, it's plausible that they aren't entirely blowing smoke.
 
I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard there's a woman who posts one complete book per day on Amazon, cover and all, and it's all AI-generated. Like, 1, 2, 3, 4...if she doesn't already have hundreds of books under her name by now, she probably will soon.
She'll get nuked by the search/discovery algorithm, I bet.
....there have been cases of authors leaving prompts in...
Okay, that's kind of funny. Would ruin the mood for sure.
 
I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard there's a woman who posts one complete book per day on Amazon, cover and all, and it's all AI-generated. Like, 1, 2, 3, 4...if she doesn't already have hundreds of books under her name by now, she probably will soon. Maybe she sells 5-10 copies each, but she's betting that in the time it takes you to write one book, she'll have sold hundreds without lifting a finger. To me, that's complete BS, and that's an assault on the industry. On the flip side, should we castrate those who use AI for typos, SPAG, and POV drifts? Cuz right now, after exhaustive experience with the thing, I don't think it's reliably capable of doing much more. Deep dives and developmental editing aren't one of its strong suits.
She's a romance writer, and there was an article about her in NYT. She has published over 200 books and sold 50k copies overall. She has to switch her pseudonym frequently because she sells about 200 copies before she gets review bombed and sales stop. She's not trying to make money with the books, she's trying to sell her AI model and methods with high subscription fees to her "classes" for people looking for a get rich quick scheme (and too dumb to realize she's getting rich off of them, not books).

She's a scourge on humanity, running a scam in plain sight, and not even mildly apologetic about it.
 
Back
Top