Yeah, that thing which has been all over social media for a while now… hell, it even seeped into a discussion within my coaching group when I was asked for my opinion on the subject “as a writer” by a fellow writer and ex-journalist. But more on that later…
Here’s author Chuck Wendig on the subject…
AI-generated creativity isn’t creativity. It is all hat, no cowboy: all idea, no execution.
Chuck Wendig
AI-generation relies on the idea, and executes upon it…. it can’t help plagiarizing, it can’t not spit out the biases of its makers.
Writer and artist James Pailly acknowledges that change is inevitable, but echoes my view that we shouldn’t be afraid of change. There will be some who will be content with AI produced writing and art, but there will still be people who value that work which has humanity writ large all over it.
My opinion? I accept that it could prove a useful tool – certainly for research purposes, or in providing prompts. But… it won’t sound like me, for the simple reason that it isn’t me doing the writing. Now, I know as writers we can choose to assume a voice – something which happened without specific intent when David & I co-wrote a work of fiction. Even those who knew us and our writing well weren’t able to tell who had written what bit (I suspect even we’d not be 100% confident of doing so now after all the mods and edits). But it was us assuming the voice, and it was us creating the voice, and so the writing remained ours.
One other area I have for concern is the body of information already available which is either incorrect or out-of-date. While there is no suggestion of mal-intent, what is the mechanism to prevent ChatGPT harvesting and using it, when they don’t have the specialist knowledge to evaluate it. Let me give you an example from real life. I know a military history geek with specialist knowledge and qualifications in the subject who spends time at military history events talking to re-enactors. His experience is that very few of those re-enactors have studied the subject matter let alone have academic qualifications, much of what they know is harvested from their peers. The problem is their peers are no better qualified than they to be considered subject matter experts. What tends to happen is when a man owns a deactivated WW2 rifle, what he says about said rifle is given a high degree of value, even if his “knowledge” came only from a conversation with a fellow re-enactor, neither of whom have done any proper study or research. Think then of the amount of material published online without peer review, and you’ll see my concern.
So, is it all a lot of hot air and hype? Well, the current writers strike in Hollywood would suggest not. And I don’t think any of us would be surprised to find the money men opting for a cheaper automatic option that they could push around in terms of unreasonable working conditions. But balancing that is the number of actors who are walking out of awards and refusing to appear on chat shows publicising their current offering in a show of support to writers. ‘Cos you know what, actors, good actors in particular, know the value of good writing. They don’t want to be acting in some formulaic tosh which the money men have had generated by AI.
One final personal experience with AI. I use LinkedIn as the social media outlet for my business and have noticed that they’re now offering an AI option in the writing of posts. I’ve not tried it, nor am I inclined to do so, but I’ve started to notice some bizarre comments being left on my posts. These comments are left by those who have identified me as a potential client for their services, and are commenting in order to build a relationship. So far so par for the course, but the fly in the ointment is that their comments are so strange that they shout AI. As a result, I don’t value their input and give them limited effort in response and would be uninclined to work with them when they make the approach. And it’s not only me, so many of my fellow users are experiencing the same, that posts are now being written commenting on the phenomena.
In short, it’s a tool, much like many others. I can see its appeal to some, and I can see how it may be of use to creatives. But I don’t see it replacing creative people.
In closing, let me say that if we were in France – or any other country where French is the lingua franca – when ChatGPT is spoken out loud, it sounds like Chat j’ai pété, which means Chat I farted…
Need I say more?
What do you think of ChatGPT or other AI options? Have you/would you use them?
© Debra Carey, 2023
Fiction Can Be Fun 