A few days ago I wrote about the German magazine Die Aktuelle using an algorithm to approximate responses that former seven time Formula One champion Michael Shumacher could have provided.
I called it ghoulish, and I stand by that assessment.
The very next day twitter was filled with tweets about an author who used a similar process to write his next book
..@OneworldNews has signed Benny the Blue Whale, an adult debut by @AndyStanton15 in collaboration with ChatGPThttps://t.co/YrU7MNtnYA (£) pic.twitter.com/1lPIBzAeXc
— BookBrunch (@BookBrunch) April 19, 2023
As is twitter's wont the debate raged between those who would deify the 'author' and those who would tear them limb-from-limb.
Without being an extremist I'm definitely on the side of 'not providing a traditional publishing service' to such a 'writer'.
Still, I thought it important to consider views beyond my own, and read the reasonable responses on both sides.
One of the more cogent reasons for accepting such a work came from those who argued that there are already ghost writers. These are people who write, but their output is credited to another person. The most common place this happens is autobiographies. It is very common for a high profile account of someone's life to be have written by someone completely different to the name and picture on the front page.
The person the biography is about will have sat and discussed things to a greater or lesser degree with the person actually producing the written word, but they will have not put pen to paper other than to sign the contract which their agent procured.
It's not only non-fiction where those who do a large part of the work remain uncredited.
The UK writer of thrillers based around the horse racing world, Dick Francis, could have been an answer to an obscure question about who led the 1956 Grand National horse race until after the final fence (Devon Loch, btw). But he's known as the author of 40 novels and 1 short story collection.
He also has 4 novels credited to him and his son, Felix.
Here's the thing, he would have quite happily shared credit for all of his novels with his wife, Mary.
While Dick thought nothing of sharing his writing credits, it seems his wife thought to do so would be to dilute the reason for the success of the books.
Whether that is true or not is a matter of conjecture. Though it is easy to suspect the taught 300 page thrillers published as Dick Francis would not have fared so well if written as Dick and Mary Francis.
Still, times have changed. Clive Cussler now has his ideas written out by a number of 'sub' authors.
The same goes for James Patterson and Lee Childs.
Using a secondary writer is already common.
What makes using a computer program different?
Thinking about it, there are benefits for an 'author' who uses such. They get to retain more of the royalties. Beyond paying for the program which is designed to imitate their style, they have no further overheads.
And the cost of buying a program is definitely less expensive than an actual writer who needs to pay rent, buy food, pay for fuel, etc.
So the question comes down to this: As a reader, are we comfortable with reading words inspired by, but not written by, the main author credited.
For me, that is no.
Yet, I have read all those Dick Francis books without knowing Mary was at least co-author on them. So why wont I read Cussler, Childs, or Patterson where they take the trouble to credit a secondary writer?
I guess it's snobbishness.
Some part of me wants to believe in the purity of the art, even as I watch tv programs inspired by an idea that is written out by barely credited teams of writers, or songs produced through layers of people barely acknowledged.
Which is weird, as I have been the uncredited writer on newspaper articles. It was only twice, with a company I was with for six months. The company was mainly investments and my speciality was mortgages. The owner had a university era link with the business editor of a newspaper, and did a monthly column. Sometime she wrote it, sometimes she farmed it around the firm to folks with relevant knowledge or experience. Twice in six months, that was me.
So, why not read books which are, fundamentally, collaborations?
Damien Hirst, the UK artist has produced the majority of his work with the assistance of others. The first time I really became aware of it was his 2007 piece 'For the Love of God'
I listened to an interview about the creation of the piece and was kind of shocked to discover Hirst did not make it himself, but relied on others to do so.
To what extent is the piece Hirst's work?
See, I'd read about the huge effort Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni took in painting the Sistine Chapel. That was the work of an artist.
At the same time - well, roughly - I read about Salvador Dali signing his name on things which people had purchased under the impression it was his artwork, yet which he had not produced.
Which of these is original artwork? That produced by the person themself, or that acknowledged by the person accredited?
Part of the issue is the idea of art.
There are two definitions of art. Firstly, there is that defined by those who understand all of the coded references in the piece. These folks understand the period the work was produced in, they can explain the purpose of a piece of fruit, or the placement of a pet, or why a garment is draped in the way it is. Secondly you have the more common among us: We like what we see. It resonates with us.
So, where does artificially created work fall into the spectrum?
Generally, it is going to be effective in the second group of folks. We may not know exactly why we like a thing, but we know it when we see it.
Of course, most folks are a little bit column A, a little bit column B. Whether through deliberate learning, or osmosis via long exposure, we learn the aspects of what appeals to us, and with a little thought can explain why.
Why, then, should that be different with written media?
The cogent argument is, it shouldn't. Yet, still, for me, the idea of a computer program producing the writing which I find appealing is difficult, even unpleasant.
There is a line between art and entertainment. It is a line which has no defined limits, which shifts over time, and location, and circumstances - even a shifting combination of the three. It is defined by the people who produce, use, or enjoy whatever it is being produced.
So, I should be tucking into the many tomes about to be produced by folks putting a prompt into an algorithm. But, I just can't bring myself to do it, even as I have enjoyed the output of those who write to a regular rhythm and not drag words out of their tortured psyche.
At some point I'm going to find myself enthralled by the published books of someone who used a writing generator. It wont be deliberate and, when it happens, I'll feel deceived. I'll be annoyed and remove that writer from any list of approval I have.
And I'll do that even as I enjoy television programs which, unbeknownst to me, is written in a similar manner.
It's a complicated paradigm which most of us will end up not addressing because we'll accept that which is provided for us without expecting us to make a decision.
text and banner by stuartcturnbull. banner created in Canva
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @wanderingmoon ) sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
👏👏👏👏👏
I want to see more debates in this topic.
I see no problem with a person using ai to help them in producing entertaining stories. I myself will use prompts from ai to get a story going but I write the story.
If a written piece was done partially with help from ai and is good I will not turn away. I must give a warning though about cut and paste from ai text... AI is too repetitive first of all. Secondly ai is limited to a word count.
It's a thorny subject which the inceasing complexity of algorithmic generators will make more debatable along finer margins.
Those who choose not to make personsl decisions on what they accept, will find those decisions made by companies they cannot control, in the manner of most entertainment today.
I touched on a similar vein. Written works are often a collaboration between writer and editor. The author gets all the credit while the editor gets a mention. I have read somewhere that some of the best writers are rewriters. They will go back and rework a chapter or a paragraph, often at the suggestion of an editor.
The writer has a vision for what the work should be. The editor or cowriter is there to help the writer achieve that vision.
And so I think it is with AI. An author has a vision for what the finished product would be. He may write most of it, get some suggestions, drink copious amounts of alcohol, incorporate some phrases from conversations, use a clever way of plugging a plot hole he read in another book, or any number of techniques to produce the published piece.
When we see a painting, we look at the final image. We don't often look at where the painter may have used a brush, a trowel, a spatula, a sponge, or any number of tools at his disposal. We also don't see the parts that are painted over or the discarded canvases as they failed to create their vision.
Finally, Robert Kiyosaki often says that he's not the greatest writer, having struggled in his high school English classes. But he often emphasizes that he is a BEST-SELLING author. Meanwhile, there are many great writers who haven't published anything. I don't think we can compare the two. There is the art of writing and the business of writing.
Those who are in the business of writing only have to write to a standard that people will buy. They're not going to get hung up on how they got the best seller. If they wish they had done something creatively different, they'll do it on the next best seller. For them, it's a craft, not an art. We can't hold them to the standards of artists. A skilled craftsman with an AI tool can efficiently work wonders where a hobbyist would make an awful mess. We can't discount AI in the hands of a highly skilled writer.