I'm thrilled to find Fictional Sarah and look forward to learning more about how we writers can impact the world regarding climate change. As someone who writes eco-fiction (mostly with fantasy and/or sf themes) for teens and young adults, I am open to any tool that will assist me in sharing my message, and although I will likely be condemn here on Substack for saying it/writing it, I view AI as a tool. I also view AI as a ego-free writing partner, great at some things like brainstorming ideas, beta reading, and other aspects not directly related to writing a story. We realize that AI editing tools like Grammarly and ProWritingAid aren't perfect and yet many authors use them in combination with real-life human editors (who are also far from perfect). So, why the big fuss with this new form of AI which is still in its infancy? So, for now I'm in Joanna Penn's camp as a A4 (AI-Assisted Artisan Author). After 30+ years of professional writing, I'm more energized and enthusiastic by the addition of these new tools. Thanks for the discussion. And yes, these comments were written strictly by me, the human, though PWA suggested a few edits.
In a way I think it’s a very Barthesian question, because to me it highlights something that was implicit in what he said about authorship. There’s the idea that “the author” as a construct is not the same as “the human being who wrote all of this stuff”— because as humans we work on writing in a piecemeal way which takes ages, and “the author” is what emerges from that exhausting process.
But it’s already the case that “the author” is not the humans writing the words in a lot of capitalistic structures— press releases and quotes from the powerful are written in a collegiate way by people you never hear about; part of a machine in a possibly literal sense. So I think there already is a gap between authentic writing and a lot of writing which is produced in the world: I think a person can give an authentic account of themselves through authorship, but people are already absent from more authors than we might be comfortable with
Yeah I broadly agree with you even though my reflex is to disagree haha. But I think there's something very interesting about the idea of having words that are so mechanical in nature that we can have a machine write them. What use is a press release? What use is a blog post for SEO? It raises the really important questions "what does AI actually do?". There are so many legitimate uses, I think especially in medical or scientific fields, but why are we trying to make it do this one thing that is so deeply intrinsic to who actually are?
Oh heavens, I definitely agree. I think I’m trying to say “Oh Lord, some of these horrors were already here!” rather than endorsing a world full of future horrors
Oh for sure they were already here! AI is like another notch on the continuing slide towards.... something not good. I guess that's the thing I didn't capture - the fact that this was and is inevitable, and the not-good-ness of it is depressingly obvious. It's enshitification writ large. I've got notes for a part two of this which includes imagining what the Adam Curtis documentary will say about AI in 20 years from now. "AI promised to revolutionise the world and make everything better. But this was a fantasy. AI did not, in fact, make the world better"
You had me at AI being "part of the social and economic and machinery that is driving the climate crisis."
Thank you!
I'm thrilled to find Fictional Sarah and look forward to learning more about how we writers can impact the world regarding climate change. As someone who writes eco-fiction (mostly with fantasy and/or sf themes) for teens and young adults, I am open to any tool that will assist me in sharing my message, and although I will likely be condemn here on Substack for saying it/writing it, I view AI as a tool. I also view AI as a ego-free writing partner, great at some things like brainstorming ideas, beta reading, and other aspects not directly related to writing a story. We realize that AI editing tools like Grammarly and ProWritingAid aren't perfect and yet many authors use them in combination with real-life human editors (who are also far from perfect). So, why the big fuss with this new form of AI which is still in its infancy? So, for now I'm in Joanna Penn's camp as a A4 (AI-Assisted Artisan Author). After 30+ years of professional writing, I'm more energized and enthusiastic by the addition of these new tools. Thanks for the discussion. And yes, these comments were written strictly by me, the human, though PWA suggested a few edits.
Because it's designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many, as the essay explains 🙂
In a way I think it’s a very Barthesian question, because to me it highlights something that was implicit in what he said about authorship. There’s the idea that “the author” as a construct is not the same as “the human being who wrote all of this stuff”— because as humans we work on writing in a piecemeal way which takes ages, and “the author” is what emerges from that exhausting process.
But it’s already the case that “the author” is not the humans writing the words in a lot of capitalistic structures— press releases and quotes from the powerful are written in a collegiate way by people you never hear about; part of a machine in a possibly literal sense. So I think there already is a gap between authentic writing and a lot of writing which is produced in the world: I think a person can give an authentic account of themselves through authorship, but people are already absent from more authors than we might be comfortable with
Yeah I broadly agree with you even though my reflex is to disagree haha. But I think there's something very interesting about the idea of having words that are so mechanical in nature that we can have a machine write them. What use is a press release? What use is a blog post for SEO? It raises the really important questions "what does AI actually do?". There are so many legitimate uses, I think especially in medical or scientific fields, but why are we trying to make it do this one thing that is so deeply intrinsic to who actually are?
Oh heavens, I definitely agree. I think I’m trying to say “Oh Lord, some of these horrors were already here!” rather than endorsing a world full of future horrors
Oh for sure they were already here! AI is like another notch on the continuing slide towards.... something not good. I guess that's the thing I didn't capture - the fact that this was and is inevitable, and the not-good-ness of it is depressingly obvious. It's enshitification writ large. I've got notes for a part two of this which includes imagining what the Adam Curtis documentary will say about AI in 20 years from now. "AI promised to revolutionise the world and make everything better. But this was a fantasy. AI did not, in fact, make the world better"