The tricky thing about the WGA AI demand is (I am a WGA eligible screenwriter), it is already being used by screenwriters. For example, writers are having ChatGPT listen to Zoom development meetings. As executives are giving notes for changes, the writer then asks (without others knowing) ChatGPT for suggestions based on notes it just heard. The writer then shares those idea as if it was their own. The writer writes the changes themselves, the AI is solely generative. I assume development execs are doing the same. Will this put all of us out of work? I don't think so. Like you, I think there is a responsible approach. Do I trust the studios to use it responsibly? LOL. The WGA ask that every credited writer be a human is clearly reasonable, and should have been agreed to without hesitation. But the ask that AI not be used to generate source material is naive. It's already happening.
For me the opportunity to publish anything is an exercise in developing agency. The need to pay attention to what I'm actually feeling and thinking inside, choose words and concepts that convey it, and then generate the confidence to share it—are all pleasurable professional practices that are important to me. Those same skills help me to communicate face-to-face, and person-to-person; which is essential as as a professional speaker. So far I'm not touching AI and have no desire to, but no doubt it will become harder to avoid. In the meantime, I'm keeping the dopamine rewards of forming thoughts, sentences, and reaching other human beings to myself. I'm counting on the fact that the limitations of my knowledge compared to AI will force me to keep speaking from my experience and telling stories, and that readers are going to develop a growing hunger for this as AI takes over the neighborhood.
Sigh, since I may be one of the few people who hasn't used ChatGPT at all, and who doesn't even have an account, I have to say I think all three of your examples, Justin, could've been handled in a non-AI manor--as they probably were prior to the introduction of ChatGPT. Ergo, I am not torn about using it. Nor do I think it's a necessary evil, just an evil that's charging at us from over the horizon and that we as writers have the choice to do with as we want. Will it infiltrate our lives beyond belief? Absolutely, it already is. Amazon has more AI generated books being published than it knows what to do with, or understands how to control, and yes the WGA is right to worry about it. However, it doesn't mean we have to be swept up with the tide. And it is a slippery slope. It's one seemingly small decision at a time, then before you know it... Hey, the next time you have writer's block? Take a walk, eat a donut, but stay off AI. Just a thought.
I'm of two minds on ChatGPT. I think using it as a utility (ie your example of taking notes and making them presentable, formatting, and other structural stuff ) is fine. I have zero interest in reading AI-generated articles, or other work, and I think we're about to be hit with a tsunami of it. A bunch of anodyne, optimized-for-SEO "content" is the last thing we need.
So far, I’m still among those writers who have never used ChatGPT (or any other AI), and am appalled that so many writers have embraced it. I think it’s morally reprehensible to pass off AI generated content as your own work.
At the same time, I am hearing from an increasing number of writers I respect and trust, including you, that they are using Chat GPT as an aid to make them more efficient or suggest options when they can’t think of any.
So I am becoming less convinced that it is all bad and more torn about the ethics of using it in very limited ways.
I agree, Grammarly is an AI tool. I subscribe to ProWritingAid, a more sophisticated version of Grammarly. When the platform introduced ChatGPT, it was awkward and inefficient. As of now, between what I write and my incredible real-life editing partner, I don’t see ChatGPt being a game- changer, not yet anyway.
I've only used ChatGPT once when I was stuck on how to finish an article. I wanted to see if there was a thread that I had missed, or there was a logical conclusion. In the end it did give me an idea, but I rewrote and adapted it.
I wonder if in the future, even considering the advances of AI, we would be able to intuitively gauge whether an article is AI generated, like we use non-verbal clues in our personal interactions to tell if someone is telling the truth.
“Revising existing passages by using the prompt “revise this:” and entering the paragraph;
Asking for subheadings when my mind draws a blank by using the prompt “what is a one-word subheading for the following paragraph:” and entering the text…”
As a writer who strongly believes the adage “writing is revising,” your first example struck me as … painful. Like you said (as did an author I interviewed about using AI for fiction), everyone will have their own lines to not cross, and that one is to me such a line. I think it removes an entire step from what we call “writing.”
The second example just seems lazy. (I’m not calling YOU lazy. I’d do it, too, I think, because I hate subheadings, but then again…the challenge is sometimes part of the fun, isn’t it?)
AI writing is, to me, like a self- driving car. It allows us to put in less effort and think less critically while generally still getting us where we need to go. I’m not really a fan - except for use by non-writers who need to effectively communicate something in writing.
This is really a very big problem. I think we need a program that determines whether a human or a robot wrote the book, so that the work of the AI does not overlap with the work and labor of humans.
The tricky thing about the WGA AI demand is (I am a WGA eligible screenwriter), it is already being used by screenwriters. For example, writers are having ChatGPT listen to Zoom development meetings. As executives are giving notes for changes, the writer then asks (without others knowing) ChatGPT for suggestions based on notes it just heard. The writer then shares those idea as if it was their own. The writer writes the changes themselves, the AI is solely generative. I assume development execs are doing the same. Will this put all of us out of work? I don't think so. Like you, I think there is a responsible approach. Do I trust the studios to use it responsibly? LOL. The WGA ask that every credited writer be a human is clearly reasonable, and should have been agreed to without hesitation. But the ask that AI not be used to generate source material is naive. It's already happening.
For me the opportunity to publish anything is an exercise in developing agency. The need to pay attention to what I'm actually feeling and thinking inside, choose words and concepts that convey it, and then generate the confidence to share it—are all pleasurable professional practices that are important to me. Those same skills help me to communicate face-to-face, and person-to-person; which is essential as as a professional speaker. So far I'm not touching AI and have no desire to, but no doubt it will become harder to avoid. In the meantime, I'm keeping the dopamine rewards of forming thoughts, sentences, and reaching other human beings to myself. I'm counting on the fact that the limitations of my knowledge compared to AI will force me to keep speaking from my experience and telling stories, and that readers are going to develop a growing hunger for this as AI takes over the neighborhood.
Sigh, since I may be one of the few people who hasn't used ChatGPT at all, and who doesn't even have an account, I have to say I think all three of your examples, Justin, could've been handled in a non-AI manor--as they probably were prior to the introduction of ChatGPT. Ergo, I am not torn about using it. Nor do I think it's a necessary evil, just an evil that's charging at us from over the horizon and that we as writers have the choice to do with as we want. Will it infiltrate our lives beyond belief? Absolutely, it already is. Amazon has more AI generated books being published than it knows what to do with, or understands how to control, and yes the WGA is right to worry about it. However, it doesn't mean we have to be swept up with the tide. And it is a slippery slope. It's one seemingly small decision at a time, then before you know it... Hey, the next time you have writer's block? Take a walk, eat a donut, but stay off AI. Just a thought.
People creating Twitter alternatives have to realize that it’s not the platform that has value ... it’s the interactions.
You used to be able to cultivate meaningful interactions on Twitter ... maybe you still can?
A new platform means nothing if you can’t do that. It’s not about the content or personalities...it’s about the interactions.
I'm of two minds on ChatGPT. I think using it as a utility (ie your example of taking notes and making them presentable, formatting, and other structural stuff ) is fine. I have zero interest in reading AI-generated articles, or other work, and I think we're about to be hit with a tsunami of it. A bunch of anodyne, optimized-for-SEO "content" is the last thing we need.
Ahh, Natalie... Sorry, what was the question?
So far, I’m still among those writers who have never used ChatGPT (or any other AI), and am appalled that so many writers have embraced it. I think it’s morally reprehensible to pass off AI generated content as your own work.
At the same time, I am hearing from an increasing number of writers I respect and trust, including you, that they are using Chat GPT as an aid to make them more efficient or suggest options when they can’t think of any.
So I am becoming less convinced that it is all bad and more torn about the ethics of using it in very limited ways.
I agree, Grammarly is an AI tool. I subscribe to ProWritingAid, a more sophisticated version of Grammarly. When the platform introduced ChatGPT, it was awkward and inefficient. As of now, between what I write and my incredible real-life editing partner, I don’t see ChatGPt being a game- changer, not yet anyway.
I've only used ChatGPT once when I was stuck on how to finish an article. I wanted to see if there was a thread that I had missed, or there was a logical conclusion. In the end it did give me an idea, but I rewrote and adapted it.
I wonder if in the future, even considering the advances of AI, we would be able to intuitively gauge whether an article is AI generated, like we use non-verbal clues in our personal interactions to tell if someone is telling the truth.
“Revising existing passages by using the prompt “revise this:” and entering the paragraph;
Asking for subheadings when my mind draws a blank by using the prompt “what is a one-word subheading for the following paragraph:” and entering the text…”
As a writer who strongly believes the adage “writing is revising,” your first example struck me as … painful. Like you said (as did an author I interviewed about using AI for fiction), everyone will have their own lines to not cross, and that one is to me such a line. I think it removes an entire step from what we call “writing.”
The second example just seems lazy. (I’m not calling YOU lazy. I’d do it, too, I think, because I hate subheadings, but then again…the challenge is sometimes part of the fun, isn’t it?)
AI writing is, to me, like a self- driving car. It allows us to put in less effort and think less critically while generally still getting us where we need to go. I’m not really a fan - except for use by non-writers who need to effectively communicate something in writing.
It is, I agree!
This is really a very big problem. I think we need a program that determines whether a human or a robot wrote the book, so that the work of the AI does not overlap with the work and labor of humans.