I have had some people come at me in another area of my writing, claiming I use AI, and it’s not because I sound like AI, it’s how I organize my writing to break down concepts. It’s been eye opening for me.
On the one hand we have the AI generated content, and I can see how some writing styles can mimic AI, but I also see that AI learns quickly and adapts.
I made the mistake of using AI for a short while to help me with edits, but quickly came to realize that even in edits it tries to create uniformity, removes authentic voice or presence, and like it would in code, based on concept of theme merges that feedback into the pocket or category that fits the pieces to the puzzle.
On the other hand, each time we give AI content, it takes all that you give and splices and repopulates into that conformity. It will be interesting to see if it will learn and adapt to equate itself to learn voice or presence as a human mind that contains unique life experiences and perspectives. I have a feeling that right now, it’s simply learning, and that holds a new set of concerns and fears. Where does humanity fit? Like when the computer first came out, the tech was refused and treated of like mind, and now it’s everywhere. How do we find the middle ground?
There is a line drawn in the sand for writers that are trying to make it in this world that is complicated enough as a writer, only to battle with the unethical complexes of something outside of the human arena within AI, and that becomes tricky territory. I’m glad that the Copyright office has made clear indications of what is acceptable or not, because that becomes the next big issue. Next will come what to do with all that unrestricted and un-copyrighted content. A frenzy of copy and pasting with duplicating works (which we are seeing now) is going to lead to more polluted markets/funnels and I’m not personally looking forward to that at all.
Well, this ended up being a lot longer than I expected in response, but I so appreciate all that you are doing to give voice to all of this. Thank you for witnessing my rant.
Thank you for writing this. Let's shout it from the rooftops! Every time I read about AI generated writing I feel like I just got punched in the stomach. I truly hope someone out there is developing a software that allows us to detect if AI was used...some handy, trusty tool that will allow editors, publishers, content consumers and creators to quickly, easily and reliably detect AI use in writing. It's the most unfair thing ever. The playing ground must be leveled. (Maybe this detection software already exists? If not, someone, somewhere start inventing it please!).
I have great sympathy for the folks who use AI, even those who get thousands of likes. For me, the musculature of doing is its own reward. I'll stick with my 46 likes and the gift of having moved my writing forward the only way I know how... by sweat and heart.
You are so right on the musculature. I read a report that shows using AI affects our cognitive skills. It's one of the things I want to write about. And boy, I feel you on the sweat and heart
Yes--I have 4 young sons and my greatest fear for them is that they don't develop the joy of rigorous, intellectual work. That moment when you feel a complex idea finally coming together... there's nothing more satisfying.
First, I have to leave a heart for you. Next, I'm going back to read the article. I'm killing myself writing fiction, non-fiction, and memoir every week, and I'll be damned if I will be bested by a computer copying people who write fiction, non-fiction, and memoir!
Just the research on the non-fiction work alone is kicking my behind more than a little. So much so that I am considering writing that piece every other week so that I can do a good job with the material. If I wanted to write it every week without all the research and trouble, I'm sure I could have ChatGPT whip something up that I could massage and post.
I haven't read his article yet. I may get to it. My main thing is that *I don't* use AI to write. I have no control over others (I wish I did, so I could banish all AI "writers" to the machine planet in one of our neighboring star systems).
My Medium stories all have something at the end that states they weren't written using AI. People can choose to believe it, or not. I thought all my Substack articles had that, too, and then I discovered that footers here don't work quite like I thought.
I would love to see a little icon next to authors that label them as authors who promise they don't use AI or as authors who do. A little icon. Some will lie. I am not going to concern myself with those who can't be honest.
But it would be nice to skip those who are willing to honestly say they are using AI. A lot of people, I think won't care. I doubt they'd lose a ton of readers.
I'll keep writing. Flaws and all.
I'm always glad for your consistency with this, as I've said before.
The unfortunate part is that the people who admit to using AI are the minority. Most people don't and some even insist it's human written despite that it gets a 100% AI score when tested for AI detection. What a world we've built
I have to defer to you on this. I’m not an expert on AI use. Most of what I know about it is the occasional article like yours. I played with Midjourney for AI art for a bit, but the guilts washed over me and I stopped.
There was a chilling article in the New Yorker a week or two ago about AI use among university students. Some profs are going back to bluebooks in the classroom for in-class essay writing, and the kids are flummoxed, lol.
I wish I had answers. All I can do in response is write, I guess.
Just as an FYI, those AI detectors are largely garbage. I've run plenty of obviously AI-generated pieces through them and gotten many a false negative. I've even run my own work through them and gotten false positives. AI detectors use the same fallible tech that's "hallucinating" sources that don't exist and summarizing text it didn't actually "read." They can't be trusted.
The best AI detectors we have are our own superior pattern-detecting brains.
One of my new favorite writers, Magena Heart, says that she doesn't proofread too closely. If you find a typo, accept it as proof that the post was not written by AI. She's made some good points about Substack in this post: https://magenaheart.substack.com/p/i-dont-like-substack-any-more
Want to know a crazy thing, Jim? People who use AI often tell it to include a couple of common typos. Or they just manually add them. They think it throws people off. I will go check out her post and thanks for linking! :)
This one bothers me because I've always proofread closely. So under this notion, people will automatically think my writing is AI simply because I don't have typos? When I write comments or notes, I'm not perfecting my writing, so there may be typos, but for my publication, you bet I am. My publication is much more finetuned, and I resent the idea that I have to dumb my work down, just so it doesn't come across as AI.
I don't think Magena is suggesting that we dumb down our writing to avoid it being mistaken for AI, only that it offers a hint that a real human is behind the writing. As for not using AI at all, that ship has sailed. See this by Holly MathNerd: https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/you-need-a-personal-ethic-of-ai
That was a great article, thank you so much for sharing it!
Sorry if I came off strong in my previous comment. You are right, I don't think Magena was suggesting that, I was projecting because of a recent conversation with someone on who had implied some of my articles were written by AI because they were "too perfect." I should have taken a breath before I posted. 🧘♀️
Maybe 12k people fall for the AI generated pieces, but I don't. As a professional copywriter, I see it a mile away and immediately notice the emptiness behind it. I unfollow people who use it in notes.
But...I also use AI as an assistant, mostly a thesaurus or to point me towards a fact-check. I've run an article through it for a proofread. I don't think it's entirely evil.
Maybe we no longer write to the masses. We write to the connoisseurs.
Man, Kira, I love running across people who spot it a mile away. I usually spot it, but Will's post gave me a couple of profile tips that he noticed and it was an aha for me. Your last sentence is killer, I think you might be right
I use it this way too. Run a piece through it for advice or a review. Maybe use a suggestion but never copy and paste. I know some who use it to do research, write chapter headings, or organize study notes or a training pdf. It really has no place in writing content as literature.
I recently read that a lot of specialized websites and blogs are now getting fewer hits and clicks, because the AI in Google Searches can give people a one or two line answer / summary, based on data-mining the websites in question. I'm on the fence about that, because I don't think it's fair for someone not to have to read a longer post to get their question answered, but ... admittedly, if I'm busy doing something and just want to know ONE THING / get an answer, I too have glanced at that AI section. :P
As for writing... I think maybe sometimes we forget why we're doing it. It's not to get likes or clicks, it's because we love to write. We would keep writing in a void, even if nobody would ever read it, because we are born to write. To NOT write would make us miserable. So, let us write! Create our art! Share it with the world! Stop comparing ourselves to blogs that get 1,9000 likes and reblogs. In ten years, those blogs won't matter. They won't be remembered. But maybe one or two of the random people who happened to see a snippet of our writing will have had their hearts touched by it. THAT and the fact that we did it BECAUSE WE LOVE IT are what matters.
I hear you on why we write. I used to write for print magazines in the late nineties. I will always write. Whether I'll always eat because I write is a different question. lol
AI is so much better for research than a Google search or going through pages and pages of web sites and blogs. It does the donkey work that is just a time waster otherwise. And there are no adverts or advertiser bias (yet). Try it and see. It's good for general research on all subjects but also for asking suggestions for days out based on your likes and preferences. Agree with your comments about writing not being about likes and clicks.
Yeah, I know. I use ChatGP all the time to help with research, or to help me figure out better SEO-friendly titles / subtitles. Sometimes I think I've done enough research or given enough examples and I'll ask it for a few more and it will give me enough to flesh out a section of whatever I am doing. It's an excellent tool if you use it right.
Thank you for delving into this question and for sharing Will’s insightful article. Hoping genuine human expression and connection will still win in a world of AI
Sorry to add another comment to what I'm sure will be a long thread of comments. I did have the "holy crap" moment after the article. I realized that I don't have my name in my Substack (can't figure out how to change it) and don't have a picture (tried - it showed up briefly then vanished). For now, I will keep working as I am until I run across someone who can gently explain these set up thingies to me.
Linda, as always, you bring such warmth and concern to relevant discussions. Thanks for not using AI! We would miss the real Linda.
What a nice thing to say, Mimi, thank you. With your image and name, are you changing them in the publication settings or profile setting? Maybe I can help :)
I asked Gemininto write the post about M., just to see the difference between my own chaos and AI's "knowledge. It was as abysmal as the poem it wrote about my dead friend. Sometimes somebody mentions that I'm not a real person, that I'm AI. Oh, gosh, Gemini isn't as chaotic as I am.
lmao. You made me laugh Paula. There is no ai that could even come close to what my brain comes up with either. As the saying goes, there is no genius without some touch of madness. lol
I’m not. 😱
Mary that emoji made me laugh.
Thank you 🫶🏻
You are so welcome. Me saying the impolite things out loud again lol
Yes! LOL! I love it! More of this, please.
I have had some people come at me in another area of my writing, claiming I use AI, and it’s not because I sound like AI, it’s how I organize my writing to break down concepts. It’s been eye opening for me.
On the one hand we have the AI generated content, and I can see how some writing styles can mimic AI, but I also see that AI learns quickly and adapts.
I made the mistake of using AI for a short while to help me with edits, but quickly came to realize that even in edits it tries to create uniformity, removes authentic voice or presence, and like it would in code, based on concept of theme merges that feedback into the pocket or category that fits the pieces to the puzzle.
On the other hand, each time we give AI content, it takes all that you give and splices and repopulates into that conformity. It will be interesting to see if it will learn and adapt to equate itself to learn voice or presence as a human mind that contains unique life experiences and perspectives. I have a feeling that right now, it’s simply learning, and that holds a new set of concerns and fears. Where does humanity fit? Like when the computer first came out, the tech was refused and treated of like mind, and now it’s everywhere. How do we find the middle ground?
There is a line drawn in the sand for writers that are trying to make it in this world that is complicated enough as a writer, only to battle with the unethical complexes of something outside of the human arena within AI, and that becomes tricky territory. I’m glad that the Copyright office has made clear indications of what is acceptable or not, because that becomes the next big issue. Next will come what to do with all that unrestricted and un-copyrighted content. A frenzy of copy and pasting with duplicating works (which we are seeing now) is going to lead to more polluted markets/funnels and I’m not personally looking forward to that at all.
Well, this ended up being a lot longer than I expected in response, but I so appreciate all that you are doing to give voice to all of this. Thank you for witnessing my rant.
Thank you for writing this. Let's shout it from the rooftops! Every time I read about AI generated writing I feel like I just got punched in the stomach. I truly hope someone out there is developing a software that allows us to detect if AI was used...some handy, trusty tool that will allow editors, publishers, content consumers and creators to quickly, easily and reliably detect AI use in writing. It's the most unfair thing ever. The playing ground must be leveled. (Maybe this detection software already exists? If not, someone, somewhere start inventing it please!).
There are some. I am writing a comparison to show how some of them test head to head :)
A good story is just that.
Yes, people aren’t paying attention.
Thank you for sharing this!
I have great sympathy for the folks who use AI, even those who get thousands of likes. For me, the musculature of doing is its own reward. I'll stick with my 46 likes and the gift of having moved my writing forward the only way I know how... by sweat and heart.
You are so right on the musculature. I read a report that shows using AI affects our cognitive skills. It's one of the things I want to write about. And boy, I feel you on the sweat and heart
Yes--I have 4 young sons and my greatest fear for them is that they don't develop the joy of rigorous, intellectual work. That moment when you feel a complex idea finally coming together... there's nothing more satisfying.
I’m afraid for younger generations as well. How will they know what’s human and what’s not? How will they develop their cognitive abilities?
Yes! It’s about improving and growing. Not just some likes.
I don't have sympathy for 'AI writers.' I do, however, respect the hustle. There's an effervescent quality to all the best grifts.
First, I have to leave a heart for you. Next, I'm going back to read the article. I'm killing myself writing fiction, non-fiction, and memoir every week, and I'll be damned if I will be bested by a computer copying people who write fiction, non-fiction, and memoir!
Omg, Mimi, right? It kills me a little
Just the research on the non-fiction work alone is kicking my behind more than a little. So much so that I am considering writing that piece every other week so that I can do a good job with the material. If I wanted to write it every week without all the research and trouble, I'm sure I could have ChatGPT whip something up that I could massage and post.
Ick.
lmao the ick. I hear you. Same
I haven't read his article yet. I may get to it. My main thing is that *I don't* use AI to write. I have no control over others (I wish I did, so I could banish all AI "writers" to the machine planet in one of our neighboring star systems).
My Medium stories all have something at the end that states they weren't written using AI. People can choose to believe it, or not. I thought all my Substack articles had that, too, and then I discovered that footers here don't work quite like I thought.
I would love to see a little icon next to authors that label them as authors who promise they don't use AI or as authors who do. A little icon. Some will lie. I am not going to concern myself with those who can't be honest.
But it would be nice to skip those who are willing to honestly say they are using AI. A lot of people, I think won't care. I doubt they'd lose a ton of readers.
I'll keep writing. Flaws and all.
I'm always glad for your consistency with this, as I've said before.
O
The unfortunate part is that the people who admit to using AI are the minority. Most people don't and some even insist it's human written despite that it gets a 100% AI score when tested for AI detection. What a world we've built
I have to defer to you on this. I’m not an expert on AI use. Most of what I know about it is the occasional article like yours. I played with Midjourney for AI art for a bit, but the guilts washed over me and I stopped.
There was a chilling article in the New Yorker a week or two ago about AI use among university students. Some profs are going back to bluebooks in the classroom for in-class essay writing, and the kids are flummoxed, lol.
I wish I had answers. All I can do in response is write, I guess.
Just as an FYI, those AI detectors are largely garbage. I've run plenty of obviously AI-generated pieces through them and gotten many a false negative. I've even run my own work through them and gotten false positives. AI detectors use the same fallible tech that's "hallucinating" sources that don't exist and summarizing text it didn't actually "read." They can't be trusted.
The best AI detectors we have are our own superior pattern-detecting brains.
One of my new favorite writers, Magena Heart, says that she doesn't proofread too closely. If you find a typo, accept it as proof that the post was not written by AI. She's made some good points about Substack in this post: https://magenaheart.substack.com/p/i-dont-like-substack-any-more
Want to know a crazy thing, Jim? People who use AI often tell it to include a couple of common typos. Or they just manually add them. They think it throws people off. I will go check out her post and thanks for linking! :)
This one bothers me because I've always proofread closely. So under this notion, people will automatically think my writing is AI simply because I don't have typos? When I write comments or notes, I'm not perfecting my writing, so there may be typos, but for my publication, you bet I am. My publication is much more finetuned, and I resent the idea that I have to dumb my work down, just so it doesn't come across as AI.
I don't think Magena is suggesting that we dumb down our writing to avoid it being mistaken for AI, only that it offers a hint that a real human is behind the writing. As for not using AI at all, that ship has sailed. See this by Holly MathNerd: https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/you-need-a-personal-ethic-of-ai
That was a great article, thank you so much for sharing it!
Sorry if I came off strong in my previous comment. You are right, I don't think Magena was suggesting that, I was projecting because of a recent conversation with someone on who had implied some of my articles were written by AI because they were "too perfect." I should have taken a breath before I posted. 🧘♀️
Maybe 12k people fall for the AI generated pieces, but I don't. As a professional copywriter, I see it a mile away and immediately notice the emptiness behind it. I unfollow people who use it in notes.
But...I also use AI as an assistant, mostly a thesaurus or to point me towards a fact-check. I've run an article through it for a proofread. I don't think it's entirely evil.
Maybe we no longer write to the masses. We write to the connoisseurs.
Man, Kira, I love running across people who spot it a mile away. I usually spot it, but Will's post gave me a couple of profile tips that he noticed and it was an aha for me. Your last sentence is killer, I think you might be right
I use it this way too. Run a piece through it for advice or a review. Maybe use a suggestion but never copy and paste. I know some who use it to do research, write chapter headings, or organize study notes or a training pdf. It really has no place in writing content as literature.
Thank you for the links but also for writing this and sharing your thoughts.
Thanks, Cassandra :)
I recently read that a lot of specialized websites and blogs are now getting fewer hits and clicks, because the AI in Google Searches can give people a one or two line answer / summary, based on data-mining the websites in question. I'm on the fence about that, because I don't think it's fair for someone not to have to read a longer post to get their question answered, but ... admittedly, if I'm busy doing something and just want to know ONE THING / get an answer, I too have glanced at that AI section. :P
As for writing... I think maybe sometimes we forget why we're doing it. It's not to get likes or clicks, it's because we love to write. We would keep writing in a void, even if nobody would ever read it, because we are born to write. To NOT write would make us miserable. So, let us write! Create our art! Share it with the world! Stop comparing ourselves to blogs that get 1,9000 likes and reblogs. In ten years, those blogs won't matter. They won't be remembered. But maybe one or two of the random people who happened to see a snippet of our writing will have had their hearts touched by it. THAT and the fact that we did it BECAUSE WE LOVE IT are what matters.
I hear you on why we write. I used to write for print magazines in the late nineties. I will always write. Whether I'll always eat because I write is a different question. lol
I still edit a print magazine! They do exist! And you can reach more people with a single article there (20 thousand) than often on Substack! :)
Yeah, I don't make a living writing. If I did, I'd be pretty dang skinny!
AI is so much better for research than a Google search or going through pages and pages of web sites and blogs. It does the donkey work that is just a time waster otherwise. And there are no adverts or advertiser bias (yet). Try it and see. It's good for general research on all subjects but also for asking suggestions for days out based on your likes and preferences. Agree with your comments about writing not being about likes and clicks.
Yeah, I know. I use ChatGP all the time to help with research, or to help me figure out better SEO-friendly titles / subtitles. Sometimes I think I've done enough research or given enough examples and I'll ask it for a few more and it will give me enough to flesh out a section of whatever I am doing. It's an excellent tool if you use it right.
Thank you for delving into this question and for sharing Will’s insightful article. Hoping genuine human expression and connection will still win in a world of AI
I hope so too, Natalie.
Sorry to add another comment to what I'm sure will be a long thread of comments. I did have the "holy crap" moment after the article. I realized that I don't have my name in my Substack (can't figure out how to change it) and don't have a picture (tried - it showed up briefly then vanished). For now, I will keep working as I am until I run across someone who can gently explain these set up thingies to me.
Linda, as always, you bring such warmth and concern to relevant discussions. Thanks for not using AI! We would miss the real Linda.
What a nice thing to say, Mimi, thank you. With your image and name, are you changing them in the publication settings or profile setting? Maybe I can help :)
I asked Gemininto write the post about M., just to see the difference between my own chaos and AI's "knowledge. It was as abysmal as the poem it wrote about my dead friend. Sometimes somebody mentions that I'm not a real person, that I'm AI. Oh, gosh, Gemini isn't as chaotic as I am.
lmao. You made me laugh Paula. There is no ai that could even come close to what my brain comes up with either. As the saying goes, there is no genius without some touch of madness. lol
Thank you for also mentioning the environmental impact of AI as well. Rarely see this referenced in conversations about AI.
You are so right, Suzie. I should write about that more