The Tool Not The Shelf

Anyone who knows me is aware I am NOT a fan of AI in the arts. Why would I be? I'm a writer. I don't want my words, my ideas, my voice, stolen and credit to someone else who didn't have the patience to write in the first place?

Nothing is more soul destroying when you put all your time and effort, heart and mind into one thing, hoping, praying it will pay off. Only for it to go unacknowledged, ignored, unheard.

You then end up seeing a news article about a man claiming to have published so many e-books and had used AI to write them.

You begin to think, should I give up? Should I give in? How can I compete against this?

It's a rough road for any aspiring writer. In this new world of AI, we have to adapt to this. We need to set regulations, policies, or laws that establish a boundary between what is an acceptable use of AI and what is not.

Personally, I would never in my life use AI to write my work for me. That, to me, is a sin. I could never forgive myself. The guilt would eat me alive. I could never ever look at a book again.

To clarify:

• I am discussing generative AI or GenAI as opposed to other types of AI like Narrow or Reactive. In the article, when referencing AI, I mean GenAI just to be clear. Thank you @autistic.etc for bringing this to my attention.
• People have VERY mixed opinions. This article is aiming to reflect these opinions by illustrating alternative perspectives.
• With the aim this may inform and open up a discussion (not a debate), that helps us as creatives to establish those necessary boundaries.

*

First, plagiarism is theft. Second, stealing words directly from a writer without a reference and claiming it as one's own is fraud.

Instead, what if we were to borrow words to inspire our own? Would that be a bad thing? Are we not inspired by what we read, hear, and consume?

Although creatives should have the awareness of the line that stands between borrowing and outright theft. Your readers want to hear from you. Your words. Your voice.

What about editing tools?

Editing software can help many writers, from those who cannot afford an editor to those looking to finish their essay they left until the last minute.

It can point out that you can never spell the word favourite correctly. Or the text, is riddled with comma splice. Where your voice maybe passive, or your syntax is ridiculously long, and it's actually three sentences that is also a whole paragraph full of waffle...

Some writers become better editors. Have fewer things to tweak and rewrite because AI has shown them their common mistakes, and as such, taught them how to correct their errors and become better writers/editors.

Again, is this bad? Is it not better to improve the skill of the writer rather than the machine?

*

AI enables accessibility. From text-to-speech to writers who need help in organising their ideas in a more structured, clear, and concise way.

Accessibility is highly important. Opening up voices that would otherwise previously be excluded from the craft. Think of all the stories that haven't been told yet.

*

However, when using AI as your tool, I will say this:

It is up to the writer to know when to use their assistant and have faith in their ability as a writer, not rely on it as the main body of your work.

Sometimes AI can detract from the authentic author's voice. AI's voice can be a carbon copy of stolen and mutated voices that are robotic and lack creativity. You want your words to flow as you pull the words together in your own unique way.

*

There are major concerns that generative AI has a huge effect on energy and water consumption. An article published on nature.com states:

"generative AI uses four to five times the energy of a conventional web search. Within years, large AI systems are likely to need as much energy as entire nations."

Then there is also the subject of employment.That threatens to replace people, thus putting livelihoods at risk. Which is already happening in some sectors.

*

I think it all comes down to moderation as most good things do. Which is why I believe discussions regarding GenAI and its use come many shades of grey. It's appears the subject is not so straightforward.

The reality is - AI is here and growing. I think the quicker we accept it's existence, the faster we can adapt to our new frien-ermy.

Although, one thing is for certain, AI cannot exist without us. It can also never have the true lived in human experience that may inspire one's creativity. The certain characters that we've encountered. Or situations we've been involved in. The conversations we pretended not to hear to use for dialogue later.

We need to have an open discussion to come to a collective conclusion about what is acceptable and when it is crossing that invisible line.

The goal is always progress, not victory.

I'm not worried about AI in the arts and neither should you. Subscribe for Part Two, where I will be covering the Dead Internet Theory.

Thank you so much for using a part of your time to read this. Stay safe out there.

:)