Yes.
A few signs that you're dealing with a chatbot:
- They're overly friendly.
- They're yes men.
- They lie around their own hallucinations.
- They are the spawn of Satan.
Things AI can do (but there aren't many)
- Thread starter Naomasa298
- Start date
A few signs that you're dealing with a chatbot:
- They're overly friendly.
- They're yes men.
- They lie around their own hallucinations.
- They are the spawn of Satan.
That said... your writing probably is good. But I bet you'd rather want to hear such things from a human than a chatbot or automated system.
Give it another year or so, and we won't even remember what non-AI, digital correspondence sounded like. One of the many reasons I left my job was the realization that I couldn't keep up with emails, agendas, schedules, and shit with turning it over to AI. Everyone I dealt with was using it, and they weren't waiting around for the humans to find the time to respond. And that we were done hiring humans for jobs that AI could do. It was one of those walk out the door before you get carried out moments.
I dunno, but both the responses I got sound like a mix of AI and human reading. It *could* be an AI grammar checker or AI rewriting the email, but that automated checks lines suggests a significant amount of work done by AI.
Mileage may vary. I don't think a human could have read, never mind respond so cohesively, to the longer piece I sent within the timeframe. In my view, the human involvement most likely went no further than a quick check that each of the four rules of robotics were applied:
INT. OFFICE BUILDING - Afternoon
A MAGAZINE EDITOR snoozes behind his desk. The wrapper of a half eaten sandwich sways to the HVAC on his desk. Bits of lettuce cling to his shirt. His tie knot is terrible. His email DINGS and his eyes fly open.
SMASH CUT TO:
COMPUTER SCREEEN - "You got mail, bruh" flashes in emergency red on the screen.
CUT BACK TO ECU of the Magazine Editor as his sits up in a hurry, knocking the sandwich and a few feet of papers onto the floor.
MAGAZINE EDITOR
Holy shit... I need to read this submission now before we all die!
(grabs his mouse and wipes his lips... sweat forms at his brow)
Wordcount, wordcount... Sweet Baby Jesus, what's the wordcount? 12K. Okay... okay... I can do this. Hail Mary full of grace....
Holy shit... I need to read this submission now before we all die!
(grabs his mouse and wipes his lips... sweat forms at his brow)
Wordcount, wordcount... Sweet Baby Jesus, what's the wordcount? 12K. Okay... okay... I can do this. Hail Mary full of grace....
The effrontery! I may report you to the owner.
Ok, maybe an experienced editor might read 12k words in an hour and a half, but I was also thinking of the frequent intervals when the dude would be muttering things like "wtf?" "ah now" "get on with it" "does anything happen in this piece of shit?" and "is this what an honours degree in Princeton gets you?" That stuff takes up a fair bit of time too, you know.
It was really just the most measured, perfectly phrased feedback that I've ever received that leads me to conclude that it was a machine responding.
I wouldn't be shocked if agents and publishing houses start doing this with novel submissions too. They can just instruct the LLM to flag what has trending content while being first filter for "poor" writing.
The sudden deference to LLMs that I see with friends, colleagues, and businesses makes me think of the bystander effect. We all just stand around with our hands in our pockets, quietly consenting. "Yeah seems to know what it's doing eh." I think its confident tone plays a surprisingly large part in that.
Bonus: Ms. Dren forwarded an important email to her manager. He told her the email chain was too long (a whole 3 emails) so he was going to get GPT to summarize it.
The sudden deference to LLMs that I see with friends, colleagues, and businesses makes me think of the bystander effect. We all just stand around with our hands in our pockets, quietly consenting. "Yeah seems to know what it's doing eh." I think its confident tone plays a surprisingly large part in that.
Bonus: Ms. Dren forwarded an important email to her manager. He told her the email chain was too long (a whole 3 emails) so he was going to get GPT to summarize it.
Do that if you want. Just be upfront that that's what you're doing and the rest of us can make informed choices.
Consider this: If you are "consistent" with their offerings, why do they need you? If there are already ten of you on their list, do they actually want more?
Trending content: The "trending" content wasn't a trend until one thing created that trend. If they only flag things that are already trending the stagnation is going to be real.
LLMs aren't infallible, they recognize patterns, but they also get overwhelmed quite easily, particularly if you are a compact writer, and overcompensate when called on it. It's quite difficult to get them to level back out again and stop being stupid.
Do any of us really want that as the deciding factor for whether or not a human reads? I don't. I don't write for a machine, I write for humans.
Rzero
New Member
I'd prefer a human reader, but agents aren't reading manuscripts half the time. They or their interns are reading half the query letter and deciding not to bother with the manuscript. I'd rather someone or something take a look at my actual writing, whether I wrote a good pitch or not. Marketing and creative writing do have some overlap, but they're two different skillsets. What if my book is great but I'm just not pitching it right?
defaux
May contain traces of purple
Active Member
Member
New Member
Winner: January Short Story
Winner: December Short Story
Winner: August Flash Fiction
Winner: August Short Story
That's kind of me feeling on the matter. Beyond the technical, how can an AI actually determine what is emotionally resonant, innovative or interesting. And on the purely technical, I could see writing like McCarthy's being auto rejected.
But maybe they don't care about interesting and only want to find the next thing they can mass-market. I've said it before, but I feel AI is the path to homogenisation of human creativity.
In theory, that could be where a machine would be unbiased by a lousy pitch and detect the things that make it great. I think where the publishers get their balls is offering feedback to an author based on a machine, if that's the case.
Like I said in 2023, the publishers will be at the forefront of creative writing AI technology, whatever that ends up looking like. It's pure financial survival and the indie publishers were already folding like a cheap tent before this whole mess started.
Anybody wanna bet me that if I submit an AI generated query to 10 agents and one I come up with on my own to 10 agents, I'll get more action through the AI? Programs hacking programs, like they said in The Matrix.
I'm half kidding, but will probably be a quarter kidding by the end of the year.
I think there's more to it than that. The query is important, but which agents you send it to is arguably far more important, and AI can't tell you who to send it to. I tried getting a list of agents I should query (after doing my own extensive research) and it recommended a bunch that were NOT a good fit for me in any way, shape, or form. The info it has access to is more limited than mine. If you could fine 20 equally fitting agents and do that test it would be very interesting to me to see the results, but I think you'd have a really hard time matching parameters closely enough.
Similar threads
