There is no shortage of fiction that we need language models to address.
Honestly I feel the same about all model outputs that are passed off as art.
If it's not worth the time for the creator to make, why is it worth my time as an audience member to consider it?
There is a whole world of real artists dying for audiences. I'll pay them in attention and money. Not bots. There's no connection to be had with a bot or its output
For instance, I write short stories (i.e., about 8-30k words). I've done it before AI, and outside some short stories I've had published I mostly just do it for my own sense of creative expression. Some of my friends and family read my stuff, but I am not writing for an audience, at least I haven't yet.
One thing I've experimented with recently is using AI as an editor, something I've never had because I'm not a professional, and I do not want to burden my friends and family with requests for feedback on unfinished works. I create the ideas (every short story I've ever written has at least 5k words in a "story bible"), I write the words on the page. In my last two stories, I've tested using AI to give me feedback on consistency of tone, word repetition, unidentifiable motivations, etc.
While the feedback I get often suggests or observes things that are done intentionally, it also has provided some really useful observations and guidance and has incrementally made my subsequent writing better. Thus far I don't feel like I've lost any of the authorship of the product, but I also know that for some any AI used spoils the pot.
For the above, I did spend time (a lot of it) to make it, but does any use of AI in any capacity render it not worth your time to read it? I am asking sincerely!
Not the person you replied to, but for me yes absolutely. If it wasn't worth your time to create then it's not worth my time to consume
People like you are starting to describe their work as "ai assisted" but I don't agree with this. It is "ai generated, human assisted". Why would you bother making something where you're only the assistant to the machine? It's kind of pathetic to be proud of this imo
Personally if I could change a setting in my brain that immediately flagged any piece of work with any amount of AI generation in it, I would spend the rest of my life happily avoiding them. There is too much work created by genuine human artists to bother with the soulless AI slop
I truly do understand this, but this line you and others keep using isn't actually helping me understand your position. I spent three months writing my last 7k short story, it was the culmination of an idea that took me a long time to work through. Not a single line was written or suggested by AI (an overt part of the prompt), nothing in the "story bible" was informed by AI in any way. AI helped observe grammar and structure and uncertainty as feedback for me, but it didn't create anything. Nothing was copy-pasted (literally or essentially).
I don't really put labels on my writing because they are again, just for me (when others read them, it's because they ask to, and yes I've made clear how AI aided in editing in the last two). Nevertheless, I just don't see it this way at all given what I wrote above. The fun part is the execution of the idea, I've no interest in robbing myself of that.
But I can also appreciate that given the private nature of what I'm doing, the stakes are lower so believing what I say is easy. If someone asked me to read a self-described "AI-assisted" story, I probably wouldn't want to because I wouldn't know how much to believe them if they said what I said above.