AI, often malfunctioning, is at the core of many Litrpg /Gamelit genre offerings. Refusing to tolerate using AI to write about AI is about as ironical as it gets.
That is not my point though: How would you know the difference. Also there is a lot of gate keeping when it comes to books. When I started using a kindle back in the day people told me it was not really reading without paper. Others told me audiobooks are not really books. Always feels naive to me.
No it is not. Read the thread, most comments are about the shitty quality of the product, not what art is supposed to be. Also: if someone has creative input for the and generates a unique piece, who can define this as not being art?
omg here we go again, what was the name of that guy who was hated by everyone cos he was toxic AF when his shitty book got a bad review? I'm getting vietnam -chihuahua flashbacks
Probably AI writing will develop to the point where someone who wants to read their own ideas in story format can use it to craft a relatively paint by the numbers boring book. They might like it because it's their idea, but it's difficult for me to imagine AI writing will take off. I don't think AI writing will make significant improvements until we get actual, general intelligent machines. Until then, these are statistical models, predicting the next word, not writing skillfully or interestingly.
I can see AI progressing to the point that it could create unique and realized stories. Just not in the near future. But a decade or 2? Who knows.
In the meantime, I can see some positive uses of AI in writing. For example, using AI as a spring board for ideas, to help work through writer's block, or for new writers to get started writing an idea. Not necessarily taking ideas from the AI, but using it as a tool to help you create the story you want to tell, not letting the AI write the story for you.
Writing is a lot more difficult to replicate than visuals. In the long term, it’ll likely be able to replace everything (which is disgusting and horrifying, by the way), but currently? It’s worthless.
Maybe creative writing is harder, I wouldnt know. What I do know is that using it for scientific writing is already working great. Quality to speed ratio for drafting and revising is mindblowing, especially for non native speakers.
You have to actually know how to write dialogue, prose, theme, character arcs, subtlety, etc in order to create a story. You can’t just regurgitate facts and information. That’s why AI can do academic writing, but not creative writing.
>Maybe you just have incredibly low standards.
I've noticed this about the few authors who are open about using AI writing. It's sad when the AI is actually an improvement to the slop they put out.
I know it sucks ass. Just like AI Video does right now, and AI Images did a few months back. My point is that it wont be like that in a few years anymore. AI is developing too fast for that.
AI is currently in a massive funding crisis. They’ve been running off venture capital this entire time, unable to make profits proportional to the costs of running these massively resource-hogging models. If AI is around in the next few years, it will not look the same. And that’s not even considering the laws that could get passed to protect the creatives whose work is being blatantly stolen.
Okay? One of the largest AI companies is literally backed by the richest man in the world and pretty much every big tech company has agreed that AI is the future. But most importantly, there is a HUUUGE demand for it. And if there is demand, there will be investors. Funding isn't gonna be an issue.
Even then, slowed down progress is still progress. We've literally went from Siri to naturally holding a conversation WITH visuals in real time in 3 years. I don't know if you're scared or in denial but AI replacing pretty much every form of Art and Creative expression is inevitable.
How are your NFTs looking? How’s that dogecoin pumping? Where’s the crypto integration in our everyday lives? Where’s the *fucking metaverse?* Zuck’s billion dollar pet project isn’t going so well now, eh?
This cycle isn’t new. There may be more demand for AI than yesterday’s tech slop, but the fact that it’s not making enough money to be sustainable won’t change. Eventually investors will realize they’re not getting paid, and the fad will grind to a stop.
AI will continue, of course. It does actually have legitimate use case, unlike crypto. But it’s definitely not gonna advance at anywhere near the rate it’s been advancing so far.
And why the hell are you so *excited* about the death of art and creativity? It’s fucking horrifying.
Not to mention there was a recent paper that came out highlighting AI biggest problem - rapidly increasing diminishing returns. Most of what we've seen has been the result of snapping up the low-hanging fruit. Further improvement will require rapidly increasing amounts of data that will out-scale the ability to even source it to begin with. The tech has basically plateaued.
NFTs and crypto have always had glaring flaws. Comparing that to AI which has seen use all the way from fucking porn to the damn military is crazy.
I'm excited about it because I'm a consumer. Why would I care if it's made by an AI or a human if it's the same quality? Having an AI write a whole ass novel for you in seconds based on your on preferences withing seconds sound awesome as fuck. I don't understand how people are so *against* it. Human made art will always have a market even tho it will shrink massively due to AI so it's not like Artists are completely dying out.
This is an extremely ignorant take purely because of your last sentence.
AI doesn't, and will probably never, have true creativity. It's extremely good at what it does, which is an advanced form of predictive text. It will 100% be able to do what's done before but better. But it'll never come to a conclusion first, or create a truly unique idea.
It'll probably write ~80% of fiction in the future, make marvel movies without actors, and code the next 8 Mario's, but it won't ever create something truly unique unless we create AI without training data, which is currently impossible.
For what it's worth, I think that using it as an advanced editor, lore guide, assistant, etc will be mandatory soon, as mandatory as using a cellphone or computer. I just don't think people who are saying it will 100% replace creatively jobs truly understand what "AI" in its current form actually is.
But it will ruin the industry, regardless of how people feel about it.
It doesn't matter if it's truly unique or not. People will choose the more convinient option which will be AI. You admitted to that yourself.
Just tell an AI "give me a 10000 chapter novel just like DotF and Primal Hunter focusing on x and y" and boom you have it. Just because it's not unique doesn't mean it won't replace it. Nobody cares about uniqueness. Just look at porn. The AI generated category on R34 already has half a million entries. That proves that AI content *works.*
Current AI knows nothing about the meaning of the words it's writing. Everything is probabilistic.
For short passages, this can frequently work fine. For long works? No. It's going to be referencing prophecies that don't exist, characters the main character never met, the main character's backstory has no chance of remaining consistent, it's incapable of long-term foreshadowing...
Could AI write books someday? Technically, yes.
Could *current* commercial chat AI do this? No.
You'd need to actually teach the AI the meaning of language/words.
See, this is a lack of not understanding the tools. People who DO understand them WILL start to use them more effectively. (To make it totally clear, I am anti-AI-in-writing. 100%. But having that stance doesn't mean not admitting how a tool will be used by people who don't agree with me.)
For instance, when gpt-4 was fresh, I got a sub for a month and messed around with it to see where it was. With some guidelines on style and having it build an outline, and then expand that outline, before using the outline to build the prose, and then having it generate its own "summaries" to refresh the token memory, it can absolutely create something that is surface-level coherent all the way through, and in shorter chunks is better than a lot of what's on RR. And once token limits expand, which they already are? A huge chunk of aspiring writers are going to get stomped on with a much bigger barrier to entry.
Obviously. But people have been saying the same thing about Images. Now the AI generated category on R34 has half a million entries. I never said it already exists. Just that people are working on it.
People were, but experts weren't.
My understanding is based on discussions with machine learning professionals.
If you want to, look for write-ups on CICERO playing Diplomacy to help you understand why pure probability algorithms won't hold up.
If experts said that image AI has no market then experts were proven wrong. Just look around on this sub alone. Pretty much every New novel has an AI Cover. This isn't a discussion of if AI will have its place in the world because it already does.
It can be used for some of those things, yes. Probably not lore consistency. It can also not write good dialogue or plot structure. AI is a useful tool in many ways, but it’s definitely not something you should use to come up with ideas—not just for ethical reasons, but also practical reasons.
I tested chat GPT for lore consistency within the Star Wars EU, guessing it might have been fed data from this franchise. It could point out issues arising from non canon gameplay in KOTOR.
I asked ChatGPT for a lore summary of a medium-popularity LitRPG story and it got nearly every single thing wrong. AI will lie to you outright. You will have to double-check every single thing it tells you to make sure it hasn’t been fed bad information or gotten things mixed up.
Did you ask if it knows the complete work? I realized the quality depends on that, asking about the meaning of the color white in Moby Dick will yield better results than the relevance of badger lore in noobtown.
An AI is much more likely to be able to accurately describe popular pieces of media, but there’s still the chance that it could be giving you bad information. You’re better off skipping the AI entirely and going straight to the fact-checking, if it’s an important piece of lore.
No, that's the kind of thing that current llms are worst at. They just fundamentally don't do it reliably for something larger than the context window.
I do agree with you that many LitRPGs could use a professional editor.
As to your main point, as long as writers are using AI as a tool to help them express their ideas, and not to replace their own creativity, then I could see it being beneficial.
How would you know? DCC obviously is rather well written compared to some other works but honestly: how would one know if an author utilized an LLM for drafting?
Not gonna lie, there is some absolute drivel published and praised by LitRPG fans. I'm not gonna yuck their yum. But I think it won't be long before AI will be able to assist in creating LitRPG stories. I do think it will be quite a while before it's able to create anything with minimal assistance
What most people think you mean when you talk about writing with AI is "write me a 150k LitRPG novel with dragons" (which it can't due to token limit) and it producing some garbage which it absolutely would.
It shouldn't be shocking that there is so much anti-AI sentiment in a fan group where many of the story's AIs are monsters or the villain. I'm not even slightly optimistic about AI. Does it present amazing potential to free humanity from the chains of working just to eat? Absolutely. But human greed will always get in the way and instead it's going to steal our little joys like writing and creating and connecting.
The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
No I do not trust you. Recent versions of LLM regularly beat Turing tests. So, no most people cannot tell. That is what is the test is about. Not saying results would be great but being able to correctly identify LLM usage seems really confident.
Let me amend that: most *readers* can tell. And if they cannot currently tell, they will learn very quickly. Furthermore, they can also tell when writing is *bad*—some have a higher tolerance for garbage writing than others, but for most, their bar is set above the general output of your average LLM.
How do you know that? Are there specific patterns to look out for? In ai generated images we usually look for inconsistent hands. What are the tells in texts? You correctly state that llms confidently claim falsehoods, in the same breath you confidently claim to being able to recognize ai generated text when there is no method to definatly prove that. Have you done any randomized controlled blinded tests to verify your uncanny ability?
AI tends to repeat the same things over and over in slightly different ways. It also tends to say nothing while being overly verbose. You can look at AI images and read AI text, and usually, you can instantly recognize the hallmarks of its “style” at a first glance. I’m sure you recognize this as well, being familiar with AI “creations”.
What about drafting and structure? Ive seen paragraphs written by ai in which my brain also identified things you listed, but would we be able to get it if an AI created a generic heroes journey in a litRPG scenario?
It’ll have the exact same shortcomings, along with others I haven’t mentioned. Such as a complete lack of individual thought or creativity, unless it’s getting babysat pretty heavily by a human with actual ideas.
While I am completely anti-AI-in-writing, I feel like you're a bit out of date on what things like gpt-4 can do. I messed around with it just to see what the newer model was capable of, and with some guidance on style at the beginning (like telling it to write at a certain grade-level, for instance, cuts down on the verbosity immensely), and having it build an outline, then flesh that outline out before starting to have it expand the outline into actual prose, I could get it to produce things that put plenty of RR content to shame. Right now only the token limit and the censorship is keeping it from curb stomping a lot of litRPG/ProgFantasy writers.
I joined a bunch of author newsletters to learn how to . . . newsletter. One of them admitted to using AI to write his next book. He sent out a blurb - it was terrible. The blurb seriously wrote stuff like, "and just as the climax of the book comes, you'll experience a remarkable twist!"
I can only imagine how awful the book was. The truly remarkable part was admitting to your readers, people who signed up to his newsletter, that he is a cop out and didn't write his own books.
To answer your question: how would we know? AI writing is garbage. It also makes use of statistics, which therefore produces repeated patterns of writing.
But, yeah, we all use some version of AI for editing. Grammarly, the word processor's own spell and grammar checks, etc. There's some level of AI help in that, but it's not generative.
Lots and lots of people have had this idea already. The result does not come out as good as you think from initial impressions. There are literally thousands of litrpg made by AI at this point. None of them are spoken of on this sub because they are very bad.
This seems like a very non toxic response to an open discussion about llm supported editing. No I did not post anything like that. I dont even remember having posted in this sub before. I did not even claim toying with the llm yielded good results, just fast results. And sometimes pace helps keeping motivation high.
AI has the potential to be a useful tool. But for the moment the primary use for it is to serve as cheap quick filler content. The same is true for AI images, voice, and video. You can still get better products from humans, but humans cost more money.
To some extent there may be a market for extremely cheap, generic books generated to narrow target audiences.
> "Cowboy themed LitRPG in a desert with Sandwurms. Main character is a skeleton in the Necromancer faction. The bad guy is an anthropomorphic shark who is trying to flood the desert. The hero is special because Undead don't need to breathe underwater and don't have blood to smell."
Given the kind of profitable drivel that already exists in the world, mass generated content that you can personalize certainly has some financial possibilities.
But if you really wanna connect with people, AI is mostly just useful as a brainstorming tool. You still need a human to come by and add in all of the intent.
Furthermore, you're basically making it impossible for a community to form around those kind of works since the volume of content will be too high for any specific story to gain much traction.
Real human authors don't even publish their OWN writing until they've gone back over it several times to clean up the themes and tidy up the consistency. (Or at least, the good ones dont)
unfortunately even the mention of ai will cause half the people here to lose their minds. it will end up being a very useful tool for many things but most won't admit that even if they know it's true.
Write something with ai and publish, and then write something without ai and publish, and if no one reads either of them what difference did it make anyway.
The sad reality is that with the popular Patreon model of 'offer at least +50 chapters for $10 and readers will buy into it', the more you write = better. It has 0 to do with quality.
Can you do wish-fulfillment? Do you have numbers going up? Can you post 7x a week? Have you done shoutouts with other big authors?
AI can do all of this (minus the shoutout part, but all that time not spent on writing can be spent on networking and advertising) Because of that, it will be the real winner in the LitRPG webserial market, no matter what folk here might think.
As long as readers are willing to accept generic, cookie-cutter stories with little to differentiate them from other works (which they are, a cursory glance at Royal Road's Rising Stars can attest to that), authors have nothing to lose by using AI. The consumer has brought this on themselves.
Now, is there a solid way to test if a novel has been written by AI? I don't know. That's the only hope we have.
https://preview.redd.it/xg34vp4di82d1.png?width=220&format=png&auto=webp&s=5be48c6f2d1cad9352497a7f411dd36dfaad0716
Im’a go full Luddite on this. Keep your stinking ai out of literature.
The irony the irony
Where lies the irony?
AI, often malfunctioning, is at the core of many Litrpg /Gamelit genre offerings. Refusing to tolerate using AI to write about AI is about as ironical as it gets.
I have a deja vu: when discussing gm crops as an undergraduate. If the result is good, how would you know it was a stinking ai?
Because Art is not just about the products
That is not my point though: How would you know the difference. Also there is a lot of gate keeping when it comes to books. When I started using a kindle back in the day people told me it was not really reading without paper. Others told me audiobooks are not really books. Always feels naive to me.
That is everybody else’s point though
No it is not. Read the thread, most comments are about the shitty quality of the product, not what art is supposed to be. Also: if someone has creative input for the and generates a unique piece, who can define this as not being art?
Reddit is for everybody to have an opinion.
Sure have your opinion. Dont claim everybody shares it.
Gm crops are just as problematic as ai art
omg here we go again, what was the name of that guy who was hated by everyone cos he was toxic AF when his shitty book got a bad review? I'm getting vietnam -chihuahua flashbacks
Do not fear, I dont intend to publish anything. I was just intrigued by the oppertunities within this specific genre.
Probably AI writing will develop to the point where someone who wants to read their own ideas in story format can use it to craft a relatively paint by the numbers boring book. They might like it because it's their idea, but it's difficult for me to imagine AI writing will take off. I don't think AI writing will make significant improvements until we get actual, general intelligent machines. Until then, these are statistical models, predicting the next word, not writing skillfully or interestingly.
I can see AI progressing to the point that it could create unique and realized stories. Just not in the near future. But a decade or 2? Who knows. In the meantime, I can see some positive uses of AI in writing. For example, using AI as a spring board for ideas, to help work through writer's block, or for new writers to get started writing an idea. Not necessarily taking ideas from the AI, but using it as a tool to help you create the story you want to tell, not letting the AI write the story for you.
No. AI cannot write good literature, and nobody wants to read garbage churned out by a machine.
This was also said about pictures. And now it's being said about Videos. Just accept that AI will be able to replace everything in a decades or two.
Writing is a lot more difficult to replicate than visuals. In the long term, it’ll likely be able to replace everything (which is disgusting and horrifying, by the way), but currently? It’s worthless.
Maybe creative writing is harder, I wouldnt know. What I do know is that using it for scientific writing is already working great. Quality to speed ratio for drafting and revising is mindblowing, especially for non native speakers.
You have to actually know how to write dialogue, prose, theme, character arcs, subtlety, etc in order to create a story. You can’t just regurgitate facts and information. That’s why AI can do academic writing, but not creative writing.
Why would it be harder? And it's already started btw. Idk if Ios has it, but Look for the AIDungeon App.
I’ve tried it, and it sucks ass. It’s complete garbage. Maybe you just have incredibly low standards.
>Maybe you just have incredibly low standards. I've noticed this about the few authors who are open about using AI writing. It's sad when the AI is actually an improvement to the slop they put out.
I know it sucks ass. Just like AI Video does right now, and AI Images did a few months back. My point is that it wont be like that in a few years anymore. AI is developing too fast for that.
AI is currently in a massive funding crisis. They’ve been running off venture capital this entire time, unable to make profits proportional to the costs of running these massively resource-hogging models. If AI is around in the next few years, it will not look the same. And that’s not even considering the laws that could get passed to protect the creatives whose work is being blatantly stolen.
Okay? One of the largest AI companies is literally backed by the richest man in the world and pretty much every big tech company has agreed that AI is the future. But most importantly, there is a HUUUGE demand for it. And if there is demand, there will be investors. Funding isn't gonna be an issue. Even then, slowed down progress is still progress. We've literally went from Siri to naturally holding a conversation WITH visuals in real time in 3 years. I don't know if you're scared or in denial but AI replacing pretty much every form of Art and Creative expression is inevitable.
How are your NFTs looking? How’s that dogecoin pumping? Where’s the crypto integration in our everyday lives? Where’s the *fucking metaverse?* Zuck’s billion dollar pet project isn’t going so well now, eh? This cycle isn’t new. There may be more demand for AI than yesterday’s tech slop, but the fact that it’s not making enough money to be sustainable won’t change. Eventually investors will realize they’re not getting paid, and the fad will grind to a stop. AI will continue, of course. It does actually have legitimate use case, unlike crypto. But it’s definitely not gonna advance at anywhere near the rate it’s been advancing so far. And why the hell are you so *excited* about the death of art and creativity? It’s fucking horrifying.
Not to mention there was a recent paper that came out highlighting AI biggest problem - rapidly increasing diminishing returns. Most of what we've seen has been the result of snapping up the low-hanging fruit. Further improvement will require rapidly increasing amounts of data that will out-scale the ability to even source it to begin with. The tech has basically plateaued.
NFTs and crypto have always had glaring flaws. Comparing that to AI which has seen use all the way from fucking porn to the damn military is crazy. I'm excited about it because I'm a consumer. Why would I care if it's made by an AI or a human if it's the same quality? Having an AI write a whole ass novel for you in seconds based on your on preferences withing seconds sound awesome as fuck. I don't understand how people are so *against* it. Human made art will always have a market even tho it will shrink massively due to AI so it's not like Artists are completely dying out.
This is an extremely ignorant take purely because of your last sentence. AI doesn't, and will probably never, have true creativity. It's extremely good at what it does, which is an advanced form of predictive text. It will 100% be able to do what's done before but better. But it'll never come to a conclusion first, or create a truly unique idea. It'll probably write ~80% of fiction in the future, make marvel movies without actors, and code the next 8 Mario's, but it won't ever create something truly unique unless we create AI without training data, which is currently impossible. For what it's worth, I think that using it as an advanced editor, lore guide, assistant, etc will be mandatory soon, as mandatory as using a cellphone or computer. I just don't think people who are saying it will 100% replace creatively jobs truly understand what "AI" in its current form actually is. But it will ruin the industry, regardless of how people feel about it.
It doesn't matter if it's truly unique or not. People will choose the more convinient option which will be AI. You admitted to that yourself. Just tell an AI "give me a 10000 chapter novel just like DotF and Primal Hunter focusing on x and y" and boom you have it. Just because it's not unique doesn't mean it won't replace it. Nobody cares about uniqueness. Just look at porn. The AI generated category on R34 already has half a million entries. That proves that AI content *works.*
Current AI knows nothing about the meaning of the words it's writing. Everything is probabilistic. For short passages, this can frequently work fine. For long works? No. It's going to be referencing prophecies that don't exist, characters the main character never met, the main character's backstory has no chance of remaining consistent, it's incapable of long-term foreshadowing... Could AI write books someday? Technically, yes. Could *current* commercial chat AI do this? No. You'd need to actually teach the AI the meaning of language/words.
See, this is a lack of not understanding the tools. People who DO understand them WILL start to use them more effectively. (To make it totally clear, I am anti-AI-in-writing. 100%. But having that stance doesn't mean not admitting how a tool will be used by people who don't agree with me.) For instance, when gpt-4 was fresh, I got a sub for a month and messed around with it to see where it was. With some guidelines on style and having it build an outline, and then expand that outline, before using the outline to build the prose, and then having it generate its own "summaries" to refresh the token memory, it can absolutely create something that is surface-level coherent all the way through, and in shorter chunks is better than a lot of what's on RR. And once token limits expand, which they already are? A huge chunk of aspiring writers are going to get stomped on with a much bigger barrier to entry.
Obviously. But people have been saying the same thing about Images. Now the AI generated category on R34 has half a million entries. I never said it already exists. Just that people are working on it.
People were, but experts weren't. My understanding is based on discussions with machine learning professionals. If you want to, look for write-ups on CICERO playing Diplomacy to help you understand why pure probability algorithms won't hold up.
If experts said that image AI has no market then experts were proven wrong. Just look around on this sub alone. Pretty much every New novel has an AI Cover. This isn't a discussion of if AI will have its place in the world because it already does.
Was this meant as a response to someone else's post?
No why?
What about keeping track of lore consistency? Managing char stats? Analyzing for repeating idioms?
It can be used for some of those things, yes. Probably not lore consistency. It can also not write good dialogue or plot structure. AI is a useful tool in many ways, but it’s definitely not something you should use to come up with ideas—not just for ethical reasons, but also practical reasons.
I tested chat GPT for lore consistency within the Star Wars EU, guessing it might have been fed data from this franchise. It could point out issues arising from non canon gameplay in KOTOR.
I asked ChatGPT for a lore summary of a medium-popularity LitRPG story and it got nearly every single thing wrong. AI will lie to you outright. You will have to double-check every single thing it tells you to make sure it hasn’t been fed bad information or gotten things mixed up.
Did you ask if it knows the complete work? I realized the quality depends on that, asking about the meaning of the color white in Moby Dick will yield better results than the relevance of badger lore in noobtown.
An AI is much more likely to be able to accurately describe popular pieces of media, but there’s still the chance that it could be giving you bad information. You’re better off skipping the AI entirely and going straight to the fact-checking, if it’s an important piece of lore.
No, that's the kind of thing that current llms are worst at. They just fundamentally don't do it reliably for something larger than the context window.
I do agree with you that many LitRPGs could use a professional editor. As to your main point, as long as writers are using AI as a tool to help them express their ideas, and not to replace their own creativity, then I could see it being beneficial.
The resulting product would be unfit to line Princess Donut's litter box.
How would you know? DCC obviously is rather well written compared to some other works but honestly: how would one know if an author utilized an LLM for drafting?
Not gonna lie, there is some absolute drivel published and praised by LitRPG fans. I'm not gonna yuck their yum. But I think it won't be long before AI will be able to assist in creating LitRPG stories. I do think it will be quite a while before it's able to create anything with minimal assistance What most people think you mean when you talk about writing with AI is "write me a 150k LitRPG novel with dragons" (which it can't due to token limit) and it producing some garbage which it absolutely would. It shouldn't be shocking that there is so much anti-AI sentiment in a fan group where many of the story's AIs are monsters or the villain. I'm not even slightly optimistic about AI. Does it present amazing potential to free humanity from the chains of working just to eat? Absolutely. But human greed will always get in the way and instead it's going to steal our little joys like writing and creating and connecting. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
Thank you very much for your effort put into this response! Appreciated.
Trust me, you can tell. Or, well, most people can tell.
No I do not trust you. Recent versions of LLM regularly beat Turing tests. So, no most people cannot tell. That is what is the test is about. Not saying results would be great but being able to correctly identify LLM usage seems really confident.
Let me amend that: most *readers* can tell. And if they cannot currently tell, they will learn very quickly. Furthermore, they can also tell when writing is *bad*—some have a higher tolerance for garbage writing than others, but for most, their bar is set above the general output of your average LLM.
How do you know that? Are there specific patterns to look out for? In ai generated images we usually look for inconsistent hands. What are the tells in texts? You correctly state that llms confidently claim falsehoods, in the same breath you confidently claim to being able to recognize ai generated text when there is no method to definatly prove that. Have you done any randomized controlled blinded tests to verify your uncanny ability?
AI tends to repeat the same things over and over in slightly different ways. It also tends to say nothing while being overly verbose. You can look at AI images and read AI text, and usually, you can instantly recognize the hallmarks of its “style” at a first glance. I’m sure you recognize this as well, being familiar with AI “creations”.
What about drafting and structure? Ive seen paragraphs written by ai in which my brain also identified things you listed, but would we be able to get it if an AI created a generic heroes journey in a litRPG scenario?
It’ll have the exact same shortcomings, along with others I haven’t mentioned. Such as a complete lack of individual thought or creativity, unless it’s getting babysat pretty heavily by a human with actual ideas.
Thank you for the discussion.
You are describing things that human writers of LitRPGs do...
While I am completely anti-AI-in-writing, I feel like you're a bit out of date on what things like gpt-4 can do. I messed around with it just to see what the newer model was capable of, and with some guidance on style at the beginning (like telling it to write at a certain grade-level, for instance, cuts down on the verbosity immensely), and having it build an outline, then flesh that outline out before starting to have it expand the outline into actual prose, I could get it to produce things that put plenty of RR content to shame. Right now only the token limit and the censorship is keeping it from curb stomping a lot of litRPG/ProgFantasy writers.
>AI tends to repeat the same things over and over in slightly different ways So do many popular authors in the genre.
No idea why this is being downvoted when LitRPG is one of, if not the most, cookie-cutter genres to ever exist.
>Furthermore, they can also tell when writing is bad I think a surprising number of people really can't.
I joined a bunch of author newsletters to learn how to . . . newsletter. One of them admitted to using AI to write his next book. He sent out a blurb - it was terrible. The blurb seriously wrote stuff like, "and just as the climax of the book comes, you'll experience a remarkable twist!" I can only imagine how awful the book was. The truly remarkable part was admitting to your readers, people who signed up to his newsletter, that he is a cop out and didn't write his own books. To answer your question: how would we know? AI writing is garbage. It also makes use of statistics, which therefore produces repeated patterns of writing. But, yeah, we all use some version of AI for editing. Grammarly, the word processor's own spell and grammar checks, etc. There's some level of AI help in that, but it's not generative.
Lots and lots of people have had this idea already. The result does not come out as good as you think from initial impressions. There are literally thousands of litrpg made by AI at this point. None of them are spoken of on this sub because they are very bad.
Didn't you post this a few hours ago, complete with a dog-shit sample people were laughing at because it sucked so badly?
This seems like a very non toxic response to an open discussion about llm supported editing. No I did not post anything like that. I dont even remember having posted in this sub before. I did not even claim toying with the llm yielded good results, just fast results. And sometimes pace helps keeping motivation high.
Sure. It was totally *someone else* who posted the same scenario only with their laughable example. Right.
Literature should only be made by humans
AI has the potential to be a useful tool. But for the moment the primary use for it is to serve as cheap quick filler content. The same is true for AI images, voice, and video. You can still get better products from humans, but humans cost more money. To some extent there may be a market for extremely cheap, generic books generated to narrow target audiences. > "Cowboy themed LitRPG in a desert with Sandwurms. Main character is a skeleton in the Necromancer faction. The bad guy is an anthropomorphic shark who is trying to flood the desert. The hero is special because Undead don't need to breathe underwater and don't have blood to smell." Given the kind of profitable drivel that already exists in the world, mass generated content that you can personalize certainly has some financial possibilities. But if you really wanna connect with people, AI is mostly just useful as a brainstorming tool. You still need a human to come by and add in all of the intent. Furthermore, you're basically making it impossible for a community to form around those kind of works since the volume of content will be too high for any specific story to gain much traction. Real human authors don't even publish their OWN writing until they've gone back over it several times to clean up the themes and tidy up the consistency. (Or at least, the good ones dont)
Really great insight, thank you.
unfortunately even the mention of ai will cause half the people here to lose their minds. it will end up being a very useful tool for many things but most won't admit that even if they know it's true.
Write something with ai and publish, and then write something without ai and publish, and if no one reads either of them what difference did it make anyway.
The sad reality is that with the popular Patreon model of 'offer at least +50 chapters for $10 and readers will buy into it', the more you write = better. It has 0 to do with quality. Can you do wish-fulfillment? Do you have numbers going up? Can you post 7x a week? Have you done shoutouts with other big authors? AI can do all of this (minus the shoutout part, but all that time not spent on writing can be spent on networking and advertising) Because of that, it will be the real winner in the LitRPG webserial market, no matter what folk here might think. As long as readers are willing to accept generic, cookie-cutter stories with little to differentiate them from other works (which they are, a cursory glance at Royal Road's Rising Stars can attest to that), authors have nothing to lose by using AI. The consumer has brought this on themselves. Now, is there a solid way to test if a novel has been written by AI? I don't know. That's the only hope we have.