Quote:
Originally Posted by Critteranne
The graph included in the Neil Clarke blog post is an eye-opener. Some people said the A.I. submissions could be considered a denial of service attack because of the sheer number of submissions.[...] |
Oh, now that's interesting. I imagine the peak will drop back somewhat after the novelty of the latest generations of AI has worn off and falls out of the newsfeeds, but it's not going to go away.
I was particularly taken by the following comment:
Quote:
|
I think it’s one thing getting machine written text to give you some suggestions for outlines to get you over that “blank page” problem that most people struggle with, but to ask it to write the entire story that they obviously can’t even be bothered to read is just crazy and insulting to the person you’re sending it to.
|
So, according to this person, it's okay to use AI as one of the tools in your writing kit. But just how many "blank page" problems am I allowed to fix this way?
Writers had tools to help them fix their spelling and grammar (while theoretically redundant because your publisher should fix this stuff, but actually not redundant because you had to give a good enough a show to get seen by the publisher). Then there were various editing tools to how you pick up more interesting problems. Plus there are name (and even whole resumé) generators to supplement the old baby-name books ... and now we're apparently talking about using AIs to get us past writer's block?
So publishers like Clarkesworld are not just facing the pure AI deluge, they're also facing texts that are a varying mix of human and AI, human and plagiarism and AI.
Maybe it is time for at least some to panic.
P.S. Some hours later I looked over this and found various mistakes ... but opted to leave them in as offering verisimilitude toward my being human ... although, for all I know, some AIs may now be making deliberate mistakes in order to appear more human.