Summary

The article discusses the contentious debate surrounding the use of AI in writing, with concerns raised about the ethical implications and potential loss of human creativity.

Abstract

The author of the article acknowledges the growing presence of AI in the writing community, noting a recent comment that suggests a need for peaceful coexistence between AI and human writers. However, the author expresses skepticism about this harmony, drawing parallels to past conflicts such as the one involving SAG/ATRA. The piece highlights the potential misuse of AI in writing, where some may attempt to pass off AI-generated content as human work, thus blurring the lines of authenticity. The author emphasizes the danger of normalizing AI-generated content, which could lead to a devaluation of human creativity and originality. The article also references other writers who share similar concerns and calls for a distinction between human-generated and AI-generated content, suggesting that the use of AI in writing is akin to cheating and may lead to a form of creative resistance.

Opinions

The author is skeptical about the peaceful cohabitation of AI and human creativity, suggesting that AI poses a threat to authentic human expression.
There is a concern that sharing AI-generated examples could inadvertently encourage others to use AI in ways that compromise the integrity of original human work.
The author views the use of AI in writing as a form of cheating and is critical of those who might use AI to produce "good enough" work.
The article suggests that the increasing use of AI in writing could lead to a situation where human writers feel compelled to compete with AI, potentially devaluing human creativity.
The author endorses the view that writers should resist the use of AI and maintain a clear distinction between human-generated and AI-generated content.
There is a call to action for writers to declare their stance on AI usage and to support human creativity by not following or engaging with AI-generated content.

Us Against “Them,” The Battle Lines Are Forming

The experimenters are burning the midnight oil, seeking ways to circumvent the “rules.”

I appreciate the sentiment lately that says, “RC, AI is here to stay, and we just have to live with it.” That was shared with me again recently in a comment.

I’m not sure peaceful cohabitation is going to happen, though. Ask Seda Anbarcı how that premise worked out with SAG/ATRA. Here is her recent post. Thank you, Seda.

Sentence Fragments that Scream AI

Not all the time, but most of the time.

sedaanbarci.medium.com

That “shared space” could be. But like the screaming toddler being hurriedly ushered out of the restaurant (yeah, I've been there as a parent) to minimize the disruption to your fellow diners, I don’t have to like it.

Daily, posts here share what “AI can do for you.” I saw two yesterday.

If you are now spending as much time experimenting with what you can do with AI and sharing with others, will it be unfair for me to wonder then if you are finding ways to sneak it into your work?

And what now stops others from looking at your lab work and saying, “Hey, looks good enough for me.”

Is this comment a shot across the bow for all of us of what plans some have now? I received it yesterday. I’m still scratching my head at the intentional or accidental admission of the author.

He has, at press time, clarified his comments. However, regardless of what he chooses to do in the future, the genie has been turned loose.

This is my response to his post. I’ve since removed his comments out of courtesy to the writer.

Here is the slippery slope we find ourselves on. By you and anyone else showing examples of AI-generated products even though they don’t currently match human work, you are “suggesting” that if others try what you did and find a way to tweak it and prompt it to create “good enough” work, do you understand now the danger in doing this? I stopped following a writer a while back (you know him well) because he also wanted to experiment. At some point, his work looked like he wasn’t using his voice.

Taking a stand is not demonstrating how the enemy fights but not allowing the enemy in your home. My opinion. Thank you.

Here is yet another viewpoint. Thank you, DJ Hopkins.

AI Winter is Coming — The ‘Human Creative Resistance’ Must Rise!

Calling all creatives & writers, the ‘war of the words’ is upon us

deanjhopkins.medium.com

We will continue to see articles about the latest gee-whiz features. Kids with new toys on Christmas day, right?

But for me and others, dread. Because it’s one more annoyance we have to work around while Medium scurries about trying to “manage” it.

I’ve shared this once, but it bears repeating: the lines are blurred (thanks, James Bellerjeau) and will continue to be about how AI can be used in your writing.

By the way, I’m not thrilled about using Grammarly, but without it, my writing would look like I was inebriated.

Here’s another tip for looking at a story you suspect AI has been prompted to “write.” If you and I sit down for coffee and you spout some of the mundane, unimaginative, boring, white noise background, less than human, blah, blah, blah …

I’m going to react by asking if there is something wrong with you or if aliens have abducted you (most likely), if you have a temperature, if what you recently consumed is illegal, or depending on where you live, it isn’t.

Because, bro, it ain’t you.

And that, folks, is the main takeaway here. I'm immediately suspicious if you’re talking to me through your story, and it does not resemble something a face-to-face, over-a-beverage conversation would do.

You want your readers to be comfortable, trusting, understanding, and relating to your words, not to read a few words or a paragraph and think, WTF is this?

I stopped by a suspected AI site yesterday and had to chuckle; the “writers” they were following are lined up on the “other side” with the usual suspects. Yeah, Cypher, I see you.

So, yes, the battle lines are being drawn. The writers, who are unaccepting and unsympathetic to the use of AI, are stating such, and the ones hiding the use are being quiet about it, hoping the stink blows over and they can continue their cheating ways.

Or developing “what if” scenarios to see what they can get away with.

It’s like the old saying, “Don’t say anything, and maybe no one will notice.”

Yes, as Seda reminds us, AI uses the creations of others — the human ones. Are you okay with being on the side of thieves, or would you prefer creating the honest way as we humans do?

Victoria Kjos has been building a list of human writers who will not use AI. Let her know which side you’re on. Thank you, Victoria.

If you use it, I won’t read it, and I won’t follow you. I’m sure some of your AI buds will, though.

Your call, amigo; pick your side.

Muchas gracias.

PS: If you plan to use the badge below as a “cover” to deflect potential scrutiny of your work while you continue to “experiment,” don’t bother.

Hey, if you think I have potential as a writer and wish to sample more of my stuff, you can Subscribe here to be updated whenever I publish a new piece.

A human, not an AI text generator, wrote this story.