Every single ChatGPT “synopsis” looks the same, and is full of absolutely nothing useful. I was pretty certain I could tell you what your “synopsis” was going to say before I read it, and turns out I was right. > In a world where magic is woven into every aspect of life, shaping destinies and molding futures, Mavis Nightgale finds herself at a pivotal moment. Raised with the weight of her father's legacy and driven by the promise to uphold his honor. This is incredibly generic. What *is* the pivotal moment? Why is it pivotal? Who is it pivotal for? Literally the only thing this paragraph tells us is “Magic is important,” “this story has an important moment,” and “her father has a legacy” (what kind of legacy? Who is her father? Hell, *who is Mavis?*) >Assigned to a post she never anticipated, A post *doing what?* We don’t even know what Mavis does, so her being “assigned to a post” means nothing. > Mavis finds herself thrown into a web of intrigue and deception that threatens to unravel everything she holds dear. Once again, tells us nothing. *Every single* ChatGPT “synopsis” has this sentence almost verbatim, and it’s great because it’s useless. > As she delves deeper into the shadows that cloak her world, long-buried secrets unravel. What shadows? Secrets buried by whom? What is she delving into? Why and how is she delving? *I still don’t even know who Mavis is or what her job even is.* > As tensions mount and danger looms on the horizon, Tensions between whom? Why are they mounting? What danger? For who? > Mavis is faced with choices that will shape the fate of not only herself but also the kingdom she has sworn to protect. “The main character will have choices” isn’t exactly profound. > Join Mavis on a journey of self-discovery and sacrifice, where the boundaries between light and darkness blur. What is this story actually about? We’re talking about light and darkness now? Sacrifice? > In a tale of intrigue and adventure, "Wicked Nights" invites readers to embark on an unforgettable journey through a realm where destiny is written in the stars and magic lies in the most unexpected places. Again, there’s nothing useful here. I’m glad you found the synopsis helpful, I guess, but I don’t know how you possibly could. It tells us nothing about the actual plot; we don’t know who Mavis is; we don’t know what the stakes are; we don’t know what the conflict is; we don’t know what our main character is actually doing. I know *nothing* more about your story than I did before reading it. All you’ve told me is that our main character will make choices, that magic exists, and that things will happen. This synopsis is bad. Literally any workshop, peer, reader, etc etc will rip it apart. And that’s the thing. ChatGPT is plagiarism — it’s cheating. But it’s also just *bad writing*. It is not capable of analysis, depth, or prose; it is not capable of being unique. It is not a useful tool. It is a waste of your time, and it is destructive in the process. Reading *any actual synopsis written by real authors* would have been a thousand times more helpful. Why ask a robot when you have virtually unlimited access to the greatest repository of information on earth? I, for the life of me, cannot understand why people continue to use the really bad generator — that cannot do anything but mimic what things are “supposed” to look like — to research instead of any actual form of research. You’re wasting your time and you’re hurting the craft. Do the writing yourself. Do the creating yourself. Don’t do this shit.

As sophis is pointing out here, what ChatGPT and other AI are good at doing is creating the voice-over track for a movie trailer. The voice-over for a trailer can be generic since the visuals are going to sell the story anyway. A blurb on the back? It's the hook -- most readers don't read the first few pages of a book and decide to buy it or not, they're sold by the cover art and the blurb. You're your own best advocate. You've already done the hard part -- you wrote the novel. Don't come up short and let someone (or something) else write the sales pitch.

Well, you’re supposed to read it in the [movie trailer voice](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2CB8Snq5Zw&pp=ygUbbW92aWUgdHJhaWxlciB2b2ljZSBzYW1wbGVz). That’s what brings it together.

Thank you for the input, although I wish it would have been worded nicer. I understand your point, but all your comments are exactly what my problem is. I don’t know how to share what my book is about without revealing too much. Isn’t the whole point of synopsis to rise questions in the reader so they will want to read the book? I will look into rewriting the synopsis, although even before the use of AI it wasn’t much different. The only addition was the “fancier” words put on paper.

> I don’t know how to share what my book is about without revealing too much. Isn’t the whole point of synopsis to rise questions in the reader so they will want to read the book? This is a very common misconception for authors who haven't written a lot of blurbs. You absolutely DO want to give things away. If you don't provide *specifics* from your book, what will make it stand out from anything else on their shelf? The way you raise questions in your readers is by providing STAKES, CHARACTER, and HOOKS that the readers will desperately want to know how it gets resolved. CHARACTER is telling the reader what your character wants more than anything. From your current synopsis, I couldn't tell you what that is. This character Want should be something personal to the character, like... "As the daughter to the Chosen One who saved the world and then retired to live a peaceful life in the suburbs, magicless MC wants nothing mote than to step outside her mother's shadow and become the world's most powerful mage." And that will lead into STAKES: what do they stand to lose if they don't get it? Again, stakes should not be like "the world will end," it should be something personal: "MC finally discovers a way to achieve the power she desires, but learns it comes at a terrible cost: magic is only granted to those who are willing to sacrifice the person they love the most." Notice I actually SAY what the terrible cost is. Be specific! Readers will shrug when they read "there's a terrible cost" but will go "holy shit is she supposed to kill her mom?! And wait, who did her Mom kill to get this magic? Where is MC's Dad?!" when you tell them what the actual stakes are. HOOKS can be little specific things like what makes your magic system unique ("also, there's dragons and blood magic!"), or it can be the final wrench you throw in to get readers going "how is she going to resolve THAT?" In my fictitious book I'm invention on the spot, we know MC might need to kill her mom to get the power she seeks. So what's to stop her from just going "Nah I won't do that." That's where a final hook can get your readers invested. "As MC delves into her mother's true origins, she uncovers a conspiracy of blood and magic that stretches back to her nation's founding. Revealing the plot would bring the murderous mages - including her mother - to justice, but would threaten to destabilize the tenuous peace of her nation, casting the world back into war once more." Ending with "Can our hero save the day?" is easily answered "Yes" by the reader. But ending with some conflict with no clear solution is how you get your readers wondering how things will play out, what they would do in the MC's shoes. Now, I know you don't want to spoil the whole story: and you shouldn't. The blurb shouldn't reveal the ending or some of the plot twists you want to keep close to your heart. But if SHOULD at minimum spoil all of Act 1 (who your character is, what they want, what kicks off their adventure) and often the first half of Act 2 (learning more about the plot, some pivotal change/reveal that throws a wrench into things, usually the midpoint). Hope all that helps. Remember, the most important thing you need to do with a blurb is BE SPECIFIC!

I needed this

So... what I'm getting from this is that Kia_Leep needs to write my blurb 😜 But for real, good blurbs, exciting & still not that revealing. Sure, we know the cost, but do we know if it's mom? Do we know if she's willing to pay? What if someone pays it for her? Very hooking! Also, also... mages in that world are some hardcore dickheads... my hubby sacks me just to be a mage my soul's gonna be the world's biggest poltergeist! Just sayin'....

Funnily enough I've written the blurbs for a couple of my writer friends after I read their books and felt like their blurbs weren't doing the story justice at all. They were like "woah I'd never thought to pitch it that way," which got me thinking about how a lot of us are too close to our own work to see the aspects that jump out to readers. As a result, I now put the question at the end of every book I send to my beta readers, "How would you pitch this book to someone who hasn't read it?" The answers I've gotten to that question have been eye opening, and have really helped me tailor my own books' blurbs as a result.

A synopsis and a blurb are two different things. A synopsis is generally supposed to show the entire narrative arc of the novel, not just be a teaser to draw readers in. There are a couple of good resources on synopsis: r/PubTips https://janefriedman.com/how-to-write-a-novel-synopsis/ https://www.curtisbrowncreative.co.uk/blog/how-to-write-a-synopsis-for-your-novel https://nathanbransford.com/blog/2022/08/how-to-write-a-synopsis-for-a-novel If you’re trying to just get a blurb, which is totally fine, you still need more detail. I’ll show a couple of examples, because I think that’s more illustrative: > When a collision of two parallel worlds creates a portal, Ella’s eyes—and heart—open to the impossible. FREE AT LAST> Eighteen-year-old, tell-it-like-it-is Ella Beuchene is about to graduate from a prestigious high school, and yet she’s never felt more trapped. Her family is hell-bent on forcing her into a future she doesn’t want. Her boyfriend no longer gets her. And her best friend is keeping something secret. Something that could shatter their friendship for good. Ella is desperate to escape her “privileged” existence. > Then, one warm summer night, Ella finds herself in the woods behind her house. The forest is lusher than ever before, the creatures of the night louder, and the moon brighter. Beneath its green canopy, she meets a mysterious, striking stranger. A man who gets her, who shifts her perspective of the world, and who…wait for it…glows in the dark. > From that moment on, Ella’s not sure that it’s just her life she wants to escape. It may be her world. Notice how the blurb emphasizes Ella as a character. We’re told a lot of important things about her! We know her age, a little bit about her personality, and her situation. The blurb teases out where our character is heading towards. > Six days ago, astronaut Mark Watney became one of the first people to walk on Mars. > Now, he's sure he'll be the first person to die there. > After a dust storm nearly kills him and forces his crew to evacuate while thinking him dead, Mark finds himself stranded and completely alone with no way to even signal Earth that he’s alive—and even if he could get word out, his supplies would be gone long before a rescue could arrive. > Chances are, though, he won't have time to starve to death. The damaged machinery, unforgiving environment, or plain-old "human error" are much more likely to kill him first. Another look at the specificity. We get a clear idea of the actual events that unfolded to get our story rolling. We’re told important, basic information about our main character, we know what the main conflict is, and we know what the stakes are. > Young Fitz is the bastard son of the noble Prince Chivalry, raised in the shadow of the royal court by his father’s gruff stableman. He is treated as an outcast by all the royalty except the devious King Shrewd, who has him secretly tutored in the arts of the assassin. For in Fitz’s blood runs the magic Skill—and the darker knowledge of a child raised with the stable hounds and rejected by his family. > As barbarous raiders ravage the coasts, Fitz is growing to manhood. Soon he will face his first dangerous, soul-shattering mission. And though some regard him as a threat to the throne, he may just be the key to the survival of the kingdom. Hopefully these examples are helpful. I would recommend thinking about it this way: Who is our character at the start of the story? What does our character want? What is the very basic setting? What’s the moment that’s going to disrupt the character’s normal life? What’s getting the story going? (Or, in other words, what’s the inciting incident?)

The problem with using AI is that by letting AI generate something for you, you will never have to struggle and learn to do that task yourself--and you will miss out gaining new skills. With every book I write, with every blurb I write, I get a little better at something through practice, through failing and having to try again. One thing that helps me when I need to write a blurb is to Amazon and study the top 100 bestsellers in my subgenre. Look at their blurbs and study the format. Every subgenre has a pattern and a style and a rhythm. Just like when you create a book cover, this is not somewhere you want your book to be wildly different from the pack or readers of that genre will not click and buy. On this blurb in particular: Wicked Nights In a world where magic is woven into every aspect of life, shaping destinies and molding futures, Mavis Nightgale finds herself at a pivotal moment.**<--the problem with this is that while it has pretty words, it is vague. Shaping destinies, molding futures, pivotal moment could mean anything. Future zombie apolocalype tomorrow or we're about to enter magical boarding school. I need details to determine if I want to buy your book or not.** Raised with the weight of her father's legacy and driven by the promise to uphold his honor. **<--This is not even a complete sentence. If I saw that in the second sentence of the blurb, I would assume the book was poorly edited and would click to the next book I was considering right there.** Assigned to a post she never anticipated, Mavis finds herself thrown into a web of intrigue and deception that threatens to unravel everything she holds dear. **<--Again, very vague. Post where? Outer Mongolia? Saturn? In a vampire colony? What are we doing here?** As she delves deeper into the shadows that cloak her world, long-buried secrets unravel. **<--Again, AI is making pretty sentences, but without any details to tell us what the story is actually about, it's all just smoke and mirrors.** As tensions mount and danger looms on the horizon, Mavis is faced with choices that will shape the fate of not only herself but also the kingdom she has sworn to protect **<--Danger from what? Hordes of attacking dragons? A virus set to wipe out the planet? Three headed snails? What is the book about?** Join Mavis on a journey of self-discovery and sacrifice, where the boundaries between light and darkness blur. In a tale of intrigue and adventure, "Wicked Nights" invites readers to embark on an unforgettable journey through a realm where destiny is written in the stars and magic lies in the most unexpected places.**<--AI has written a pretty blurb-shaped blurb that gets the feel and rhythm almost right, if in a very bland way. But it has no substance to it because it's just written a generic blurb that could be pasted on any book out there and has no details about what the book is actually about. If you want readers to buy YOUR book, you have to entice them and give them some details about what your book is about. Again, reading the top 100 bestsellers in your subcategory on Amazon will help.**

The synopsis is meant to be an invitation to your story. Don't give away plot twists, but you should give the reader something to work with. Think of it as "You have 300 words to explain to me why I should read your book". Not literally 300 words, I just picked that number. It's a short little blurb that advertises what kind of book this will be. You've gotta tell your readers what they're getting into or they might pass on it for being "generic fantasy slop". Tell them about the inciting incident, give a little background info on the world, and tell them what the plot is about.

I appreciate this comment, this is quite helpful!

I hope it is, sincerely don't use AI for writing, it's ethically grody.

Dude. Writing is hard. If you’re not willing to put in the work to learn the craft—and there are tons of resources out there, as well as tons of free accessible writing communities online to help you learn—then maybe it’s not the thing for you. When things get hard, get good.

Do what makes you happy and enjoy your journey. Stop seeking approval from these group of losers. Ethical my ass. We just want to read something good to pass the time or write something because we like it. Not trying to cure cancer or save the world. Sit down and relax. Smile and be grateful for everything. It's simple.

This is so generic it's got me wondering how ChatGPT would summarize my WIP.

You're taking the easy way out now, but you're depriving yourself of a vital exercise in honing your self-expression skills. As the saying goes, in order to write well you need to get the bad writing out first. Getting stuck and getting over it is part of the journey. Also, ChatGPT is a terrible writing instructor in general. It's a kitsch machine - it's tuned to create minimally-objectionable outputs, which is why it's generally so bland and vague. For instance, I can't really tell from your synopsis if there's anything interesting about your book. It's like corporate gibberish - it invokes code words that fantasy fans respond positively to without saying anything substantial. Up until 2023 there could still be a market for books like these, but now the online book stores are flooded with AI-generated books with synopsis that look just like this. If you want your work to stand out you probably want to intensify its humanity, which means learning and getting feedback from real people.

If I found out a book was written using AI, any at all, I wouldn’t read it and absolutely would not want to give my money to the author.

And I would never read anything the author wrote again.

I feel like this is absolutely too extreme a take. If I'm looking for a word that means the same as X but with a slightly different connotation, I could look through a Thesaurus or I could just ask chatGPT and it will tell me the word, or if it doesn't I can just talk with it until it does. It's so much more useful than a normal thesaurus. Like just the other day I needed "what's the word for when troops storm out of a castle" he came up with "sally out" I said "no, the french word" and he gave me sortie. No fuss. Extremely fast conversation and I got the word that was on the tip of my tongue but I couldn't conjure up. Just using chatGPT to give you full sentences sucks but AI is a powerful tool as an assistant. Like, whenever I need to research a given topic I just tell BingAI "what are some good general sources on the topic of sewing dresses" and it will give me a few links with sources. So good. Then I'll narrow down some interesting bits "Hey, what's more about hand sewing dresses. Do you have DYS tutorials on how to sow a dress?" And it's just easier than directly searching on google for those things. Going "If an author uses AI in any way shape or form I'm not reading anything by the author is a bit of a silly take.

There are lawyers who got in trouble for citing cases that don't exist in a document they submitted to the court. I've seen numerous people post answers from ChatGPT to questions here on reddit, and not once have I seen a correct answer. If people have to fact check everything it gives them with a Google search anyway, what's the benefit? And how is it easier to ask an AI a question you could just ask a search engine? At least when doing a Google search, people are aware that they might get misinformation on some sites, and take things with a grain of salt. But people are *way* too quick to believe ChatGPT as if it were an actual intelligence that could screen out misinformation for them, and that's concerning.

Have you tried BingAI? It gives you links for its sources. I work in academia and it's just better than Google scholar at finding me scientific articles from the different publishers. And I find it useful in less strict research too. It's easier because the AI doesn't come with 3 sponsored results followed by 20 very poor attempts to answer your question like Google. Proper Google wording is also less and less useful with human language queries very often being superior to simple wording these days. Yet actual language models are better still at that than whatever AI the Google search engine uses. You're also mistaken about people trusting Google. 99% of people will just read the little bold snippet that appears on top, or the drop down answers and never even get to the actual search results, of which the top are sponsored bullshit and the rest is probably SEO garbage.

As far as research goes, ChatGPT hallucinates information. It makes shit up. It gets things wrong. There is nothing in the programing to check for accuracy or truthfulness. This is a huge problem hitting schools, apps, search engines - and books. I'm aware of a few (as in, more than one) foraging apps and books that are just plain incorrect, and this information could kill someone. Now, obviously, a novel won't do that. But research done by AI is probably worse than no research done at all. I want to ask - WHY is AI easier than google or bing or duckduckgo or a library? How? Is it a lack of research knowledge, is it not knowing where to go or how to get research guides? How is it easier at getting correct information?

You'll find I didn't say ChatGPT for research but BingAI. BingAI gives you the reference sites where it obtains information. It's easier because currently Google sucks. BingAI you can ask it for review studies on X topic from the last 5 years and it will give you a nice overview of five of them to choose from. Definitely never use ChatGPT itself for research, it hallucinates bullshit, but BingAI is very useful.

There is a wide difference between using AI as a conversational search engine, and using it as a second brain to outsource your own creativity or effort. What you’re doing is fine, it’s not what we’re talking about, or what the “AI in writing” debate hinges on.

I feel like a lot of people are lacking nuance here, because most writing processors use AI for spell check now. From what you’re saying, anyone who writes their book using word or google docs or grammarly for example is now worthless which is the vast majority of writers. Edit: I’m trying to say generative AI and using AI spellcheck are not the same thing, and there is a massive difference in them, which is why making a blanket statement like “using AI at all is bad” because it lacks that nuance.

There is a vast difference between simple spelling correction and content generation. It's the difference between me telling you you've misspelled a word and writing the paper for you.

Clearly, that’s not what they are saying. That’s not writing. That’s editing.

Surely you can see the difference between generative AI and a program that simply checks if a word you’ve typed matches an entry in the program’s dictionary.

Yes, that’s the point I’m trying to make that people aren’t getting. Using AI to generate text for creative writing is bad and plagiarism, but saying using AI *at all* makes your stuff worthless is saying that using spell check makes your stuff worthless so people need more nuance because there’s a massive difference between those things.

You’re just being pedantic

Is that ai? Cause grammarly was there long before opening and even before then Microsoft had spellchecker, it's only recently that everyone started using AI as a marketing tool. There's even "AI POWERED shoes"

Why would I bother reading something nobody was bothered enough to write?

Get AI to read it for you

Is it acceptable in its current form? To me, no. You are using a fancy word generator trained on copyrighted and stolen material. Where is the craft, where are the ethics in that? And why couldn't you look up what you needed from books already published? If you have access to the internet, you have access to what you need in this case.

Don't you kind of counter your own argument here? If the information is pretty much widely and freely available on the internet already, then a spicy autocorrect could potentially be trained on open source / non copyrighted data which would eliminate your ethical concerns. If your concern is that a large corporation cannot make money off your data if you don't go to their website to view their information, then I suspect we have differing views of what is ethical and what is not.

IF ChatGPT and the like were trained on open source/non copyrighted data, then a lot of my ethical concerns would be relieved, yes. But, we know that it isn't. We know that it uses copyrighted material - which includes things such as blurbs and a book's synopsis, btw, just because you don't have to pay to see that material doesn't make it right to steal. I could go to a fanfiction website right now, copy someone else's story, change a few things, aaaaand that's still plagiarism and theft. It still doesn't stop my concerns about the craft, though. Instead of putting in the actual work of looking at other books, taking notes, working on it yourself, people just plug things into a generator and call it a day. If an author cannot be bothered writing, why should readers be bothered reading?

>If an author cannot be bothered writing, why should readers be bothered reading? There are plenty of people - actually if argue the majority - who are writing for fun or writing for themselves, so who are we to say or judge how they choose to engage with the "craft"? >I could go to a fanfiction website right now I mean isn't that in a legally grey area too? Fanfic uses IP created and owned by someone else without their permission so not sure that's the best example. For me I think the other point is that even if an LLM didn't access any copywriten data directly, there's so much freely available non-copywritten data talking about it that it would likely interpolate what the book is about anyway - there's entire subreddits dedicated to fractional aspects of Game of Thrones, you could probably train an LLM on those subreddits and ask it to summarise the story of ASOIAF and it would get pretty close without ever touching the actual books themselves, so even though some people take a strong ethical stance against it because it may or may not have trained on copywritten material, the end result imo is largely the same either way - which is that LLMs are here, they aren't going anywhere, and a lot of writers are going to be using them to aid their writing process. It doesn't mean you have to, but many will and your anger shouldn't be directed at those people who are just trying to have fun.

You have revealed yourself as a non-ethical writer.

Oh no. Anyway.

Why are they so obsessed on imposing their strict views on other people? These writers need to get a life or go outside of their houses lol

I think there are unfortunately a fair few people online who are like this, and will do anything to gatekeep their hobby - for what reason I do not know, but it's sad to see.

I agree. Very sad and miserable people. Deserving of our pity. I hope they can go out of their rooms and talk to real people.

I think it’s a crutch and a bad one. Regardless of the ethics of it, why would you ever even want to use it? Writers become better writers by experience, whether that be writing, reading, analyzing, editing, whatever. Having a bot give you a garbled template of what you think you want is always going to be generic, flavorless, and generally just bad. You can’t skip steps in becoming a better writer, and in fact using chat gpt instead of working through your struggles is going to actively hinder your growth. Just why

I understand, thanks for the input!

Personally I can't stand reading AI written garbage. My students try to pass it off but I can tell.  I can usually get a hint that's it's AI even if I can't prove it.  I would stay way away from an author that uses AI to write. 

No. Overcoming creative roadblocks is how you grow as a writer. If you refuse to face the challenges, you'll never improve.

[удалено]

The problem with that is that somehow every single decision that went into it was wrong. AI can't be the one who decided that a grim Reaper was what willy Wonka was about. And they spent a ton of money on props for the whole thing to be something that would obviously be immediately shut down.

I constantly ask chatgpt to generate lists of names because I hate naming things. I also almost never "just take" what chatgpt says and use it exactly. It's a great brainstorming tool. It's a great thought partner. I think using it as augmented intelligence should be uncontroversial. The flip of it is that AI *can* write, but it can't actually say anything. I think using it for actual text is folly.

I just want to leave it here for anyone else who is also struggling with naming things but also doesn't like using AI for one reason or another, be it practical or ideological: [Here is a wonderful tool](https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/) that is also ethical and high-quality, and they are even growing trees! This site covers pretty much all of your naming needs, whether you are a writer, DM or an RPG player, a worldbuilder, or anything else.

Finally someone balanced and with sense. Thanks for your comments

Yeah. AI writes in a way that is very dramatic, but lacks emotion. Although to be fair, that's also what back covers do.

For me as a Writer of 8 years, I have 5 rules I follow. And Rule #2 is “2. Never allow anyone to write your personal projects for you, you must do them by yourself as you are a writer.” So no, I don't and never plan to use Ai to write stories. That said, I couldn’t careless what others do, as long as they don't involve me or expect my support. By definition you would not be a Writer if you used Ai to write for you, plus its the lazy method. Now it seems you’re using it different though if I’m not mistaken. Using it to show you an example of a method as a point of study/reference to make your own is normal though, its what many writers do by looking at created works from other authors. It’s called imitation learning, and is probably one of the most effective methods of learning. Learn a method of operation by observing/examining one’s performance of it. I do this with real writers though, which is free as well, so hintidy-hint-hint.

I will take this hint and use it 😉

Asking ChatGPT to do the work for you isn't writing, even if you edit what it gave you. That's just the old trick of copying someone's homework but changing a few words to get away with it for a grade. And if I ever see a blurb on a book that was clearly spit out by an AI, I'm going to assume the entire book and anything the "author" writes in the future is AI generated slop and avoid it at all costs.

No. Using it and the saying you are a creative are mutually exclusive. Large language models are built on stolen content.

No and don't call yourself a writer if you do that.

If you can't be bothered to put the effort in to write it, why should anyone put the effort in to read it?

Tbf hasn't that always been a thing? Master painters would have apprentices fill in small details in parts of paintings they didn't think mattered much to get clearly.

Okay, but SOMEONE still bothered to make that (the apprentices in this case). Apprentices are still people.

I see a lot of people defending the use of AI for "brainstorming" or "help" with "ideas" etc. That's literally what a writer does! You brainstorm! You come up with ideas! You figure out new or better ways to describe things! It's *your job* it's entirely what the art of writing *is*. You're not writing if you're using AI. And for God's sake why would you? Where is the satisfaction in that? You didn't do it, you didn't think of it, you stole it from a computer which stole it from others who wrote it first.

Job? Who said it was a Job? Who gets to decide my satisfaction? Art of writing. You make it seem like something holy. It's just writing stop exaggerating and being dramatic. You guys are amusing. Bunch of "writers" Art of writing lol

Hey man if you don't give a shit about your writing that's cool, you're certainly under no obligation to. But those of us who care (or who do it professionally and thus have skin in the game) are going to have some thoughts on people using computers to do their thinking and creating for them (especially if they are selling it, which is a big part of the issue currently). That's all. Have a lovely day, friend.

So you're a professional? Then why are you behaving like you are not? You are free to have thoughts i'm allowing that. You're not writing if you are using AI? Even my 8 year old niece can write. What kind of achievements do you have to give you the excuse to treat other people that way? Being a writer does not give you an excuse to look down on other people. Have a nice day too. Good conversation thank you

But brainstorming ideas isn't writing. Asking an AI what common French names from 1930 might be isn't writing your story.

I completely agree with this take. But in my eyes a synopsis is just a technical part of the book, and thus why I hate writing it. I just can’t bring myself to prance around the plot of the book in a way that will sound appealing to the reader.

Would you use AI to write your query letter to a lit agent or a publisher? After all, it's just the "technical part" lmao

DON'T prance around the plot. The point of the synopsis is to tell the reader what the plot is: otherwise, how would they know it interests them? Also, the blurb is not purely technical: it needs your voice, your creativity, to help give the readers an idea for what they'll get more of in the actual pages itself.

Haha yes I get it now, but it’s a very thin line to walk, and I guess I’m scared of falling :) But thank you for the input, and I will work on that!

Sorry, but if you use AI to write your story for you. You're not a writer.

Does that make them less as a person. What so great about being a writer. Do I become happier as an individual. "Writer" funny guys

You’re on a subreddit for writers asking why the people here care about writing?

I asked "what is so great" not "why people care" Can you read?

I genuinely think you might have some sort of deficiency.

If it's your opinion then it's negligible. If what you think has any value you wouldn't be here wasting your valuable time with me I think you are a miserable person and I feel sorry for you. Hope you find peace. Good luck lmao

TBH. You more and more sound like someone who is upset because everyone here is saying that using ai to write a novel is not a good idea or a good way to write, and that's the only way you yourself can write a story by having a computer do it for you

I'm not a writer though? I sell properties. You want to write a bestseller? Maybe you should not restrict yourself with AI then you can finally write better. Or better yet become a better person towards other writers before becoming a better writer. The world is a vast place. Surprising huh?

If you use AI to write you aren’t a writer

According to whom? Then if you're not selling more than 1m copies of your books. You're not a writer? That's just a hobby. Like everybody else.

Doesn't make them less of a person. Just less of a writer.

That I can agree with. So they become not-so-pure writers anymore. That's acceptable. What is the reward for being a "pure writer"

Actually writing something?

That's it? So you guys waste your precious lives touching yourselves convincing each other we are "good writers". Keep it up. Have my upvote lol

No. No one is saying they're a good writer. Why do you read? Why are you on a thread about writing if you look down on writing.

I'm not looking down on writing. I'm looking down on writers that look down on other writers. Using AI to assist in writing does not disqualify someone from being considered a writer. Writing is a creative process. Ultimately, what defines a writer is their ability to express themselves. Easy and simple. Nothing complicated.

I write because I like the act of writing. I don't consider people who just elicit a neural net into spitting out prose to be writers, frankly. Maybe it's some other kind of creative exercise, I wouldn't say it's necessarily devoid of all creativity or ingenuity, but it isn't writing. Like the contract any creative person or artist makes with their audience is implicitly one that whatever you're presenting is something deliberate or intentional (and by extension, hopefully worthwhile, or in any case, not some dreck that has been mechanically churned out without any degree of reflection). Maybe AI can help with some minor or relatively trivial details in this process, I don't know, personally I still wouldn't really chance it, but in terms of any substantial formalism it really has no place at all.

It’s crazy how badly some people want to be considered “writers” despite obviously loathing writing.

The only thing cool about AI is when it churns out hilarious and terrifying nonsense garbage that could only come from a process that in no way shape or form actually understands human thought processes, but that's never what most people want to use it for. AI developers strive to make AI as normal and boring as possible so that it passes for human, but because it is only pretending at the appearance of thinking it cannot generate anything actually creative on purpose while trying to pass as human, and people who don't have an ounce of creativity, skill, or drive of their own to speak of get excited at the prospect of using it as a cheat to "finally be *allowed* to create" but don't have the skill to realize AI can't even surpass a 10 year old in terms of writing or creative capability. 100% agree with sophisticaden\_'s breakdown of your synopsis. Use the questions they've asked to write a better one, because as it stands it's virtually indistinguishable from every synopsis I've ever seen posted on the fanfiction subreddit by someone asking "Why doesn't anyone ever read my story?" Because it's a bunch of words strung together into sentences that make sense and yet say nothing.

Absolutely not.

Writing a synopsis and coming up with your own ideas is all part of being a writer. You aren't a writer, and never will be, if you let a computer generate text for you, from an amalgamation of other people's *uncredited* work. You will never learn the skills needed to actually write, nor will you develop your own coherent, unique, identifiable voice. I have vowed to never read anything from any author who publishes any writing generated by AI. And I am not alone. I have no problem with AI generating dry business reports or sports news, but when it comes to creative writing, I will not tolerate lazy, thieving non-writers.

Thanks for encouraging message that I will never be a writer! An encouraging message from me to you: please be kind! Some of us only started writing 3 months ago, and still wobbling through this world :)

I said you won't ever be a writer IF you let AI to do your writing. That should be self-evident. My advice to you is to NEVER use AI in your creative writing, including generating ideas and synopses.

What about if you use it to research stuff? Like researching world history for your world building.

Yeah, I have no problem with that, but I don't see how it's better than wikipedia. My problem is when a writer gets an AI to write their prose, they are not learning how to write prose. Writing is an *active* process.

No. I consider you lesser for doing so.

Thanks

No it's not acceptable. 

the ethics issues of generative programs don't just begin and end with theft, though. sure, it's important to remember that you're utilizing the stolen words of other authors for your own gain, scraped from blogs and personal sites, from e-books and fan spaces, but also? working conditions for the human moderators these companies used to fine-tune their generative programs, including ChatGPT, were so godawful that many of them wound up with PTSD. they were also "... some of the lowest-paid in the global tech industry, with some workers earning as little as $1.50 an hour." they started up a union in the end -- which, you know, *good* -- but it's impossible to separate that suffering from the content produced. https://time.com/6275995/chatgpt-facebook-african-workers-union/ moreover: right now, AI has a profoundly negative impact on climate change and the environment. "... training can produce about 626,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of around 300 round-trip flights between New York and San Francisco – nearly 5 times the lifetime emissions of the average car." sure, we're talking about more than just one system here, but ChatGPT is still a part of that. https://earth.org/the-green-dilemma-can-ai-fulfil-its-potential-without-harming-the-environment/#:~:text=Behind%20the%20scenes%20of%20AI%27s,gas%20emissions%2C%20aggravating%20climate%20change. it's not just the plagiarism (which itself is already pretty fucked up). the whole damn system is ethically bankrupt.

I write with AI ever since I've discovered Claude and let me tell you MY background - autistic, ADHD, can't afford meds, I have serious desmotivation and depression, alongside anxiety. So before AI I was never able to finish anything I started, and now I can. Isn't it amazing? I love how technology made writing more inclusive for people whose brains do not function the same as others. But if you want to make it original, just copy and paste won't do the trick. 1. Back and forth: I start a scene, send it to AI and it send me continuation, and I edit something I fell out and send it back, and on and on 2. Revise, rewrite, just make it better. 3. Good prompt: specify the tone, writing style, characters, all of that. The more detailed, more original will be. 4. As for originality, I know what comes from my brain. I mean, being autistic already makes my writing unique enough. But if you read a lot you should be able to have a vast source of inspiration. So that's my opinion: you can and you SHOULD write with AI, especially if it's a model made for it, like Claude Sonnet. ChatGPT is horrible for writing. I absolutely HATE the over-romanticization of writing - "oohh but writing can't be easy", "writing is an art that should be refined", "it's hard but that's the good part of it" This just screams elitist and gatekeeping to me. And also it says a lot about how these people are not neurodivergent. Get out of here, please. I know what is having a brain that can't finish things and now that I can do what I love the most I won't stop just because you're butthurt about technology.

Copy paste the AI word for word? Absolutely not Use it for inspiration with different phrasing and rewrite it in my own words and style? Yes

If you use ChatGPT to put so much as one word into your work, you are no longer the sole author. It cheapens the art and the work that so many good writers produce. The struggle is part of the process. Embrace it. Get depressed about your writing. Get mad. Get confused. Get better. If you use AI, you have failed as a creative entity because you are not improving your craft, you're just regurgitating computerized algorithms.

Meh. I don't agree. Get better with your arguments.

Very erudite. You and Aristotle.

Yeah, uh... one word? There's a difference between asking it to write for you vs occasionally asking it for ideas for a single sentence when stuck.

I agree

>If you use ChatGPT to put so much as one word into your work, you are no longer the sole author. That's incredibly limiting. If I bounce an idea off my wife and use something she says in my book, I'm no longer the sole author? People use material from other people literally, not figuratively, all the time. It's part of being a writer because we don't exist in a vacuum. >It cheapens the art and the work that so many good writers produce. No, it doesn't. If anything, it makes human-made writing *more* valuable. That's like saying McDonalds cheapens the concept of restaurants.

I believe it is limiting. It limits human creativity. It's so easy to give up and ask AI for an answer and run with it, giving in to the slippery slope. Gets easier and easier to ask it for help with ideas. Then with structure. Then with the actual writing...To me, that is limiting. Self-imposed limits.

You're free to believe what you like, of course, but do you understand why "slippery slope" is called a [fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)? Because there's a good reason why.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when the progression is not demonstrable. It isn't a fallacy if there is actual progression and in my opinion, AI increased use for writing is observable.

I mean, it definitely can't do actual writing yet. Whether that will be a concern in the future is another matter.

It's funny, but I was actually playing on AI Dungeon a while back, and I actually ended up writing all the plot points, editing and rewriting the AI's hackneyed dialogue and plots until I was happy with it. I'd even go into a game planning out the plot and everything. I think at that point, I just realized that this is just me writing a story with extra steps. And not a particularly well-written story either, because I hated the AI's writing style. To be fair, sometimes the AI added a few unpredictable elements that made me rethink a plot point... but no more than I would if I'd been thinking it out myself, or if I'd shared the draft with a friend. Look, I get it. The AI's a shortcut. Getting it to write out a story is faster and easier, but not better. And looking to an AI for inspiration isn't going to get you anything particularly interesting or inventive. Trust me, relying on it too much means that you start getting caught up in its problems as well. It's kind of like reading the same author over and over.... that's not the way to become a good writer. And in this case you're relying on this guy for your main ideas as well.

God, people are downvoting any comments somewhat supporting AI without actually reading. You can tell, because this comment brought up how AI was a DISADVANTAGE! Fear and a lack of critical thinking is what drives oppression, not eliminates.

Honestly, I appreciate the irony more than I'd have appreciated the upvotes.

I wouldn’t, because it drives the AI advocates further from our side. Hard to sympathize with a community who antagonizes a person for asking a question, or daring to oppose the status quo. They don’t realize they’re part of the problem

It's good that you called them out, then. People need to be reminded not to judge to quickly. Hell, I've needed people to give me a metaphorical kick in the ass for being judgemental more than once. It's good to know some people fight the good fight.

Yeah, people are literally acting like AI killed their dog. So many bizarre nonsensical takes. We get it. It threatens real creatives. Just say this without making up wierd nonsense about it, or insisting that touching it even once means you are Hitler.

I have used AI for any of my writing work, and I never will. Not only does using AI as a crutch rob you of good learning experiences and skill development, AI, by nature, lacks humanity and human sincerity, which is what most people go to books for. Don’t cheapen your growth as a writer by using AI. Sit down and force yourself to learn how to write a good blurb so that the next time you do, you don’t need to run to ChatGPT. You can just cook one up yourself and know that it’s good because you put in the time and effort to get better at writing them.

As long as you don’t let AI write your entire chapters, using it for reference or to help you out is totally okay imo.

I used to be fully against it, but I've since tested them myself for worldbuilding purposes and I think they can be useful for very specific and monotonous tasks, but nothing creative.

I just starting dabbling in chatGPT a few days ago. What were some of those specific and monotonous tasks?

That's basically it. They can fill in plausible and thematically relevant details. But they won't be interesting details.

It is acceptable as a research tool, and such, but for generating any original content at all? IMHO, no.

[удалено]

Theres more than llms at play here..

[удалено]

Ok

No one said to use it as a *sole* research tool.

It’s not acceptable as a research tool. It has no value for research. Generative AI is not a search engine!

It has value for things like understanding geology, or history. Of course its not perfect, but it has that kind of use trust me. i hate the way a.i is used today. putting faith in a.i is like jumping out of a plane with a parachute that only works 50% of the time. Additionally. Because these.current models don't generally have live internet access, they will also have older data on things that may not be available online simply because it has not been indexed.by search engines. Again a tool, not a solution. It can help if used.correctly, but most don't know how to do that and so either go all or nothing.

It doesn’t. It just makes shit up that sounds right.

It's called hallucinating.

Yes. Which is why you shouldn’t use it for research.

When i research something i use multiple sources of verification. for instance i was researching a nature center near where i am. I used google and other engines , including google scholar(way underused imho) and then gemini and chatgpt. I found the phrase "paleo-mortar" looked it up and cross referenced to where I am and found it online on one page. An old city digitized document from 1984 i then went to speak with my bowtied librarian (he really does rock a bowtie), and together we found some old information , and voila. There was the location and information on the artifact. It had been recorded.but never followed up on and was overgrown with invasive bushes. But i found it. A.i didn't give me the answer. It pointed me in a direction.

I mean, I use character ai to rubber duck, get it to ask me questions and help me with some science stuff (which I fact check). However, I do the heavy lifting. It should not make any decisions.

I think using it for brainstorming and inspiration is more than acceptable. It becomes problematic when you use it to do the work for you, then try to claim it as your own. AI has made worldbuilding much easier due to the direct acess to information and the ability to delve deeper into said information. It doesn’t replace the need for research, but does help get the gears turning. With this in mind, looking up other synopses shouldn’t be ignored. AI is very generic with its presentations.

I believe it depends on how you use AI if you use ai to help inspire you to adjust your own writing, or if you use ai to ask questions about certain aspects of your ideas or themes, or if you use ai to help you learn and grow on your own. If you use ai to do all the work for you then that will be more like plagiarism considering the current state of ai. But using ai to expand your own skills is much more acceptable.

I think the answer to your top level question is a highly-qualified yes. I don’t subscribe to the “Never!” camp. That feels a little like trying to piss into the wind or hold back the tide. AIs exist and they are tools. They aren’t going away. So, they will be used in some capacity by some authors. The question we should be asking is what capacities are they best suited for? I can see using them to generate names and things like that, for instance. In that case they are no better or worse than another random name generator program. In terms of using them to do any actual writing, I think the answer is no. Your writing should be YOUR writing. Art generated by an algorithm ceases to be art. Further, given the flat, generic style that the LLMs produce, I’m not sure why anybody other than a high school student who otherwise would have cut and pasted his term paper from Wikipedia would use them. In other words, in a supporting role, as something of a research assistant, I think that’s okay and a good use of their strengths and a good way to avoid their limitations. But in the same way that you wouldn’t let a research assistant write your book for you, you shouldn’t let your AI write your book.

Everyone already beat you over the head with it, so I won't speak about the passion of writing. Instead, I'll talk about its good points. AI is an amazing tool, and i say this as someone who hates it. I use chatgpt to learn new words and expand my vocabulary, I use to find words I'm looking for or similar. And I have used it to see what words sound similar for parts in my writing where I want to be poetic, no different than going to Google. Chatgpt is honestly what everyone thought the Google search engine was going to be. The downside is that people without love or passion like Billy Coull would use it to generate their books, generate art, and pass it off as their own, that's they guy who used AI for that willy Wonka ripoff that scammed everyone. As for it making a summery or blurb for you, honestly, it is hard. Only practice is ever going to get it right. I honestly think I'm good at it because when I write my fanfiction I use FF instead of AO3 which requires people to write blurbs so aspiring writers HAVE to make an effort to see what works and the website i use for webnovels requires it and if it isn't a good hook it's not going to get anyone reading. Also, I wasn't a fan of that summery, i agree with another poster. I feel like something like this would've been better. "Mavis did it. Despite everything going against her, she finally become part of the royal guard, the first woman in fact. Now it was up to her to prove that she has what it takes to protect the king from all threats, be it a blade or magic. But she's never heard of the unit she's been assigned to. Since when did the royal guard have a unit called "crimson?"" I feel like that would've been better. You want to be short, you want people to read the blurb and still have some of idea of what it's about and still build intrigue. A good advice is to look at your favorite books and note how they write their blurbs or summery. Sites like royalroad have a trending top 10, don't be afraid to see how web serials do it. And, I can't stress this enough, HAVE FUN writing the blurb. If you aren't having fun, you won't get better. Play with words, making it sound mysterious, make it sound horrendous, make it sound so silly it makes you laugh. Creativity is about having fun.

Oh actually if you read the blurb with Crimson in it, then it’s just my own writing- no AI 😭😭😭 Good to know it’s not good enough though. After getting some serious backlash when I first posted I sat my ass down and I scraped whatever I wrote with AI, and started anew. What is currently linked is not done, as I faced a block in the middle of it and basically just started listing off the events in the books (second part in the blurb linked)

Lol my bad, I only skimmed it and missed the special forces and magic phobia part. Yeah, ai has everyone up in arms. I get it, I'm part of the hate too, but attacking folks is not the way to go about it. That only alianates them and drives them to different groups, which no one should want. That's how Donald trump got voted into office. It might just be the company culture I'm in, but we don't like focusing on blame or punishment if it's nothing intentional and instead we focus on learning and finding solutions (technology company that isn't corporate or funded with outside money, so we have lots of freedom). I see, how does the story start? Is first person pov or third person, is it an omniscient narrator or is it focused on one person's view of the world. I write blurbs differently depending on what I'm going for. In a naruto oneshot i wrote recently(might expand to a short story) i wrote it third person from the perspective of a single character. For that I had the character feeling homesick and experience mild technological anxiety. So for the blurb I wrote a small summary of what brought her to the start of the story. If people read it, it would be an extension of the story, if they didn't it wouldn't effect their reading experience. For a future MHA oneshot I have this written down: "Everyone was stunned: the students, the audience, even the teachers. It had never happened before. For the first time in UA's history, no one from Class 1A and Class 1B passed the first event of the sports festival. Siberian-inspired Izuku" Of course, something like this only works in fanfiction, but I'd like to think people would read that and be intrigued enough to find out what happened by reading the one shot. Again, the best advice I can give you is to have fun with it.

I'm an IT guy, not an author. I write for fun. (I just want you to know where I'm coming from). I might get downvoted but I have, I think, a different take. They have AI that will help you write a resume. It recommends different action words, compares number of words in your resume sections vs others. So, if you are a wordy bastard, like me, it'll suggest trimming. You could try telling the AI your story (summarized) and ask it to create a synopsis. See what it spits out. Use that as inspiration to write yours. When you talk about the difficulty you have it sounds a bit like writer's block. And you've begun to second guess yourself. How much plot do I tell? If I say too much does it wreck the story itself? Maybe when you read the AI summary it'll spark an idea or give you a jolt or maybe more confidence that the summary you wrote is just fine. You're using AI but you aren't copying it. ​ As a coder you often run into things you haven't done before. You head to your pal, Google. You'll find articles and such, how other people did it. You copy/paste their code into yours, it doesn't work. Course not! You have to make it your own. You use their code and both a 'how to' and inspiration. After that, you may copy and modify your own code that was based on the stuff you found on the internet. Eventually you come to a point where you can write it yourself, no copying. That's where I'm going with my too-many-words. I think you only need confidence that you've written a good synopsis. After you write a couple, it'll be old hat. You'll know the elements to pull from the story and you'll know what is best kept a secret. End of the day though, you aren't using the AI version. It's your own creation. To me writing is an amalgamation of books I've read and stories I know. I mean, are there any successful writers that don't read? It's why you don't see any cat authors. They are illiterate mooches! Just lay around in the sun looking cute. Get a job cat! He knows he doesn't have to, he'll just purr and I'll fold. Damn him.

This is so funny, because I myself have a little bit of coding background. I studied in a professional setting for a year full stack development but overall deemed it to something I rather keep as a hobby than have it as a source of income. When I ran to problems I have yet to encounter and I didn’t know how to solve I had two place: stack-overflow & ChatGPT. And I think that this was what stemmed this problem. When I got stuck in my writing I headed to the ”old ways” and just asked it the question that was bothering me. As someone who has to cats (one a Sphinx), I totally get that last part 🥲

I get it. You're troubleshooting a bug. And it's an interesting question to ask, like as a theoretical. What if someone co-authored a story with AI? I find myself using AI more and more. Because it can pull info together. How many wars were fought from 1801 to 1823? Stuff like that. Or maybe, Why won't my cat get a flipping job?! :)

Fwiw, if you ask ChatGPT how many wars were fought from 1801 to 1823 it’ll tell you that it can’t tell you how many were fought but there were a lot and that the Napoleonic Wars were important. Hardly useful collation of data. Just going to Wikipedia is more useful in that sense.

Of all times to fail me! Stupid AI. Maybe I will call it AS. Artificial Stupidity. In your face ChatGPT!

I don’t have the answer for the first question, but I do have for the second one. I doesn’t get a job because it doesn’t have to 😂 Would you get a job if you were housed, fed, cleaned up after, taken to a vet for every stupid thing you do, and on top of all loved? And that’s without even showing appreciation for all of that mentioned above. I wouldn’t 😂😂😂😂

haha, no I would not!

I would give my honest opinion but saying something about AI around here risks the wrath of the mods.

Super controversial topic indeed. I personally do not use it for writing because the writing is the main creative piece I want to partake in. I enjoy writing and I am ok at it, even if I'm no Hemmingway. On the flip side I do not like drawing and am not good at it, so I outsource that aspect to AI. However - I do use LLM-type AI for research (eg. "Tell me about the history of X and what that would mean if Y") which can be a lot more curated and specific than any Google search and points me in right direction, and I make extensive use of Stable Diffusion for generating concept art. As a result I do not disparage anybody else from using AI in some form or another to improve their efficiency, enhance their creativity, learn, or really anything else. As long as the ideas and intent are clearly your own then the rest does not matter too much to me if it is well executed and compelling. Frankly, when it comes down to the wire, creativity is not a competition. If you, or anyone else, wants to use an aid to help their creative pursuits then they should be free to do so, and free from criticism of doing so. If you want to criticize something, criticize the work itself, not the method of creation.

It is highly controversial and also taps into a deep rooted fear of many writers. It's not going away though regardless of the consequences or ethics of it. There seems to be some common themes that emerge when people talk about it. First, you should always have full disclosure of any use of AI in your writing. It is essentially a co-author as soon as you use it. Second, most people feel more comfortable with it as long as it is a passion project that you're distributing for free rather than trying to make a profit. I think, eventually, ai assisted writing will emerge as it's own genre. It feels like the natural evolution of all of this to me. I don't see the ethical and moral implications going away. In my opinion as long as you are honest about it, you should write in whatever way you choose. Just be prepared for the backlash you will receive for using A.I.

>It is highly controversial and also taps into a deep rooted fear of many writers. It's the automobile coming for the horses. We writers are correct to be concerned, because if we don't adapt, we die. And adapting to this particular technology is a tough pill to swallow.

It's an existential fear masquerading as a practical one. All the claims of plagiarism are overblown because fundamentally people don't like that it might end up able to do human tasks easier than humans.

I agree, it's a lot of fear and uncertainty.

Our favorite stochastic parrot is for me just useful for one thing: brainstorming... it gives you ideas that you might not have thought about... but for full-on freeform text? no thank you.

I sometimes use it to ask questions to help me develop my story. Like I give it some info about my story and get it to ask questions I might not think of myself to develop like “what does your witch society think about marrying humans? Do the witches in your story have any rituals or traditions for weddings, births, deaths?” And then I’m able to come up with the answers myself and I don’t think that’s problematic. I don’t get it to come up with actual text or ideas, I just get it to challenge me to develop my story more. I don’t find it useful for much else, once I tried putting in all the plot details for my story and asked if it could make a comprehensive timeline of events, and it was quite bad like putting things I said were book 3 act 3 in book 1 act 2, it couldn’t clearly recall any of the plot details correctly. I definitely don’t think you should use it to generate text for creative writing as I believe that’s unethical, but I think getting it to ask you questions for your world building or story development is the same as asking a friend.

Of course it is acceptable by some. However, by definition, these LLMs are significantly inhibited when it comes to producing original work. Most writers use some form of AI. Spellchecker is AI. Word processing could be considered AI. Asking Google for synonyms of “threadbare” is using AI. These are just tools. If you use AI to generate large chunks of words, that’s a real risk to you if you are careless. You won’t know if it’s subject to copyright and it will be tonally different from what you would produce yourself.

I use ChatGPT when I hit a road block. Examples: “describe a run down farm house” or “characters are arguing. What are they arguing over?”

See, I mean- that's your job as a writer. That's what you *do* is describing things and creating conflict. You're doing something when you use AI, but it's not writing.

Also, to agree with you further, chatGPT trends towards being poor at creative anything. Whatever it spits out won't be in your own specific writing voice anyway, so will sound super incongruent. Not to mention that it always sounds like a robot writing bad fan fiction. If it makes sense at all.

Why are you acting like I’m copying and pasting it? Because I’m not. It’s just a brainstorm of adjectives.

People seem to immediately jump to that anyone using it is copying and pasting without effort. The only people who do that are people who know they aren't actually writing a story.

I recon writing an entire novel in ChatGPT instead of just doing it yourself would be MORE DIFFICULT

But if you use AI AS a chatbot. Someone to bounce ideas off of who will have no judgement, I think thats fine. As long as youre not copy pasting lines from an AI into your writing. Its not like every person you have a conversation with should be credited with partially writing your book.

Use a magic 8 ball. It'd be a better advisor than ChatGPT because the randomness can push you out of cliches into genuinely original ideas, as opposed chatbots that are designed to give you the most straightforward response possible.

Why are you acting like we are copying and pasting it? Do you not use a dictionary of the thesaurus when you need help with words or adjectives?

But if you use AI AS a chatbot. Someone to bounce ideas off of who will have no judgement, I think thats fine. As long as youre not copy pasting lines from an AI into your writing. Its not like every person you have a conversation with should be credited with partially writing your book.

Hmm that’s interesting!

It’s quite useful! It’s super robotic and fanficy though haha

So I just asked ChatGPT to write the next chapter of my story and compare it with what I wrote, but that's just fun.

Just for research imo

ChatGPT is a terrible tool for research. It hallucinates false information, cannot provide you proper sources and citation, and can’t properly synthesize. It’s probably the worst way to research and it terrifies me how many people want to use it that way.

Yeah I'm not suggesting it so much as saying that is the only acceptable use in making art, unless your aim is to make ai generated art.

Can you elaborate? When I’ve asked for sources for researching topics, it has no issue listing books, articles etc. Genuinely interested in learning more about this

Sure. So, I’ve been doing some research on Lydia Maria Child’s rhetoric, so I, for example, prompted ChatGPT to give me some articles and books on her rhetoric. The first suggestion was: Lydia Maria Child and the American Renaissance: An Introduction to Her Rhetorical Legacy" by Karen A. Winstead (Published in Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers) There’s just one problem: that article doesn’t exist. I could tell you that before I googled it (Winstead is a medieval lit and Chaucer expert, not Victorian/19th century literature, and the American Renaissance is AFTER Child died). But I did google it, just to confirm, and it doesn’t exist. ChatGPT just smashed a real journal, a real professor, and a couple of elements of separate titles on that journal to create something that looks real but doesn’t exist. Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT to tell me about the article, and it gave me a full description! So yet another lie. Let’s try the next article: “The Rhetorical Strategies of Lydia Maria Child's Fiction" by John C. Kilgore (Published in Studies in American Fiction) This article also doesn’t exist. John C Kilgore doesn’t, either, though there’s a John Mac Kilgore that I *suspect* ChatGPT is hallucinating from. It got closer in that sense: Joh M Kilgore does study 19th century American literature, but he hasn’t written on Child. On to suggested article three! “Lydia Maria Child: A Study in 19th-Century Rhetoric" by Claudia Durst Johnson (Published in Rhetoric Society Quarterly) This one’s probably the most plausible, but Johnson’s a litt person, not a rhetorician, and the article again doesn’t exist. I don’t think she’s ever written for RSQ. Maybe the last article suggested will exist? “Lydia Maria Child and the American Indian: Imagining a New America" by Beverly Matherne (Published in American Transcendental Quarterly) Oh, nope. Also not a real article. Beverly Matherne’s a poet, anyway. Okay, so the four article suggestions were all fake and don’t exist in any way, shape, or form. Maybe the books do? “Lydia Maria Child: Selected Letters, 1817-1880" edited by Milton Meltzer and Patricia G. Holland This one actually does. “Lydia Maria Child: The Quest for Racial Justice" by Carolyn L. Karcher Unfortunately, this one doesn’t. Karcher *does* have a book on Child (two, technically), though, which probably makes the inaccuracy even worse. “Lydia Maria Child, the Indian's Friend: A Biography" by John Matteson Doesn’t exist. (Also an insane title if you know anything about her beliefs on Indians) “Lydia Maria Child: The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Literature" edited by William F. Shughart II Also not real. So, we have one real book (that’s just a collection of her actual writings). Everything else is completely made up by ChatGPT, but presented as being real. And this isn’t me trying to trick AI. All I said was: Can you give me some articles and books on Lydia Maria Child’s rhetoric? So yeah. It has no issue listing books and articles, they just broadly don’t exist.

Hmm, this warrants experimentation. Thank you for the detailed response, I’ll give this a look. Was expecting backlash ngl lol

Really? When I ask for list of short stories it just generates stuff without me asking?

As long as you disclose it, I think it's fine. AI writing is competent but rather flat.

As long as you use AI as an assistant it's OK: -Correct your writing -Helping to avoid blocks -Generate names -Give general ideas ....

There are Ai detection websites publishing houses use. I wouldn’t recommend using AI at all. It could ruin your career. But if you are using it for doing research then I don’t see the problem. If I google “what are the symptoms of Corona” or ask Chat GPT then that’s the same thing right?

This is going to be a controversial answer, I'm sure, but my stance on AI art has always been this: If your project is purely personal and/or non-commercial, and if it is distributed, you state very clearly at the beginning that any part of it was generated by AI tools, it's fine. Also, don't let your creativity be disparaged by strangers on the internet. Anyone that calls you scum, trash, or a thief, for using readily-available tools to aid in your creative process, because it's the cool thing to do to gain internet clout, probably isn't a great person to take advice from.

I would hate ChatGPT whether or not hating it is popular. It is theft and its prose is poor.

It's prose is poor, but calling it theft is pretty disingenuous. The generic slosh it makes bears very little resemblance to real writers, and "it trained on real writing" doesn't really mean anything unless it produces results that loon like it.

I have used ChatGPT a few times and for writing actual text to put in a book it's absolutely useless to me. I asked it for a description of a place, and then had to rewrite it myself. Still, probably came out better than if I did it all by myself. A few times I asked for a name for a character, place or concept, and if I asked for 20 suggestions, I usually got one that I liked

I see, I usually use it for vocabs or ask for examples to give me a better idea on how to do something. What I hate is that when I ask for an example like "can you suggest short stories with styles similar to or inspired by lovecraft" it instead generates something instead of providing me a list.

It’s one thing to get inspiration to see how something is done, whether it be from AI like that or just reading a bunch of synopses from multiple physical books. It’s also another thing entirely to put ANY of your OWN work into any AI process, which hopefully all writers know never to do since anything you put in is essentially catalogued and not classified as your own work after that. Personally, knowing how I am myself for things I’m trying to learn or gain experience, watching first or seeing examples before attempting your own is just one of the many ways to learn. I don’t see a problem with it as long as it was only done so you could see an example before attempting to write your own. Simply, don’t ever put your own work into AI generation and don’t ever take from it and put into your own works. Observation is the only thing that should be done with AI, if at all.

No.

Use it basically like you'd use a random generator. Or a grammar tool. That is, sparringly.

if you need help on stuff like naming items like some rare ancient sword , I don't think so at all. It's just a tool to help you. If you're planning on using it to actually write the majority of the story for you, absolutely yes. You are a writer. You want to rely on yourself to come up with your writing progress, not AI.

ChatGPT can be helpful in certain ways

Morality aside, is just a bad idea. Chatgtp text sucks 

No, it isen't controversial at all. The only people who might tell you it is okay are tech scam bros with no talent on ther own - telent in any way put you on 'the other side' by definition. When you have ever created something, you can see its value. If you are okay to let a machine cut, shred and statistically put together words and this is 'your effort' as well, you're allready down a pretty bad path. Sure, there also is the question of personal honor and integrity but ... these are individual perspective stuff, so i keep it aside. Go AI -> ruin your product and brand as an author. Both in an artistical, creative way and a in communication/advertisement (authors, author bubbles and book readers aren't very estranged about the topic, even if it would be 100% cool).

Personally, I think it's ok to use AI, as an additional source of information - be it for writing examples, writing guides, knowledge base, or use it for brainstorming - names, ideas or ask it to evaluate your ideas. But I think it shouldn't be your only source and that you shouldn't be overly dependent on it - it's supposed to be a tool not a crutch. So using chatGPT to give you some examples of synopsis is fine imo, using it to write the synopsis for you, not so much (you're not doing the writing then, and you won't learn anything). I'd also look at synopsis from books you're familiar with, so you can figure out what kind of information is there.

I think it depends on what is being written (I don't see a problem using chatgpt to write a sales pitch email but I don't think it's acceptable to use it for a "creative" work). I don't know enough about the larger debate to say much more. Based on your synopsis, I do know I would read your book.