AI doesn't have a soul, and that's what's missing. The writing is lifeless, barren, devoid of feeling, even if it's copying your style. Because that's precisely what it is: copy. AI can't develop independent thought (yet, although the singularity is upon us, for sure), it can only regurgitate.
It's interesting to me how of all the things we HAVE to do, people are opting to use the effort to be creative via robots. The effort is what makes masterpieces. Effort gets dishes clean and beds made, and then there's the exhaustion and no more capacity to CREATE! The robots need to learn to cook, clean, wash the clothes and fold them, make the beds - we need Rosie from the Jetsons. We don't need fake art and fake writing.
Thank you for this! I know a couple of indie authors who are shouting from the rooftops about how great AI is for writing your book. But, when I look at their books online, I see two things: many of those books have very few reviews, and that number of reviews tends to fall off a cliff from book one to book two. That tells me readers notice the difference in writing style and don't care to continue reading something written by a machine. Sure, someone might make a lot of money in the short-term by churning out books with AI, but they aren't building a readership or experiencing the joy of creation. How sad that they're missing out on those things.
This is SUCH a great point! I never considered myself a "writer" ... but I do participate in a writing group weekly, and have for nearly 5 years now. I can definitely see the evolution of my voice. I use the robots for social -- and while it kind of sounds like me, I often edit the posts or even do a total re-write because it isn't me... likely spending way too much time on social media posts as a result! 😆
Thank you - this is a great point. I'll also use it for short social post on LI, but I often end up editing a lot. Sometimes things that supposedly make our lives more efficient cost us more in terms of the time and effort to use them.
I wrote two articles on this subject. The first is about the way Chat homogenizes everything so that no one has a voice anymore. The second is about ESL and neurodivergents who use it to sound coherent but ultimately white-wash/neurotypical-wash away their identities by doing so. I don't mind if people use it as a tool, but taking it's every suggestion to tighten phrasing hurts my artist heart.
I agree about not taking all of its suggestions, and you make some great points about how it’s taking away the individual voices from those whose perspective we need the most right now.
One of the biggest professional development and reflective decisions I made as a writer was to publish a legacy collection of my short fiction. I got to see the evolution of my voice — and in editing each piece to be the best it could be upon republication — I got a master class in how my writing has improved over the years.
To see ideas I loved, that although they got published, missed the life experience and expertise to bring out the best in them.
Voice is one of those topics that’s talked about endlessly in fiction (or it used to be) as new writers angsted over “their voice” wanting to know how to find their voice.
Now it’s something people are willing to give away for convenience.
And as a former editor and smell press owner, voice is something you quickly become attuned to because you need to protect it during the editing process. Being an editor is about bringing out the best in that voice not totally changing it.
Like anything worth doing and doing well, writing requires dedication, effort and tenacity.
And for years I was always aghast when I published something with multiple typos or missed editing glitches — now it’s a hallmark of humanity and I love seeing them in my work. It signals that this is all mine. (And I took adore both the en and em dashes!)
AI doesn't have a soul, and that's what's missing. The writing is lifeless, barren, devoid of feeling, even if it's copying your style. Because that's precisely what it is: copy. AI can't develop independent thought (yet, although the singularity is upon us, for sure), it can only regurgitate.
It's interesting to me how of all the things we HAVE to do, people are opting to use the effort to be creative via robots. The effort is what makes masterpieces. Effort gets dishes clean and beds made, and then there's the exhaustion and no more capacity to CREATE! The robots need to learn to cook, clean, wash the clothes and fold them, make the beds - we need Rosie from the Jetsons. We don't need fake art and fake writing.
Amen, sister! I think you've got a great business idea - RosieBot (TM).
Cecilia, I'm going to share this with my students. So well written and so wise. Thank you!
Thank you so much! I'm glad you found it helpful.
Thank you for this! I know a couple of indie authors who are shouting from the rooftops about how great AI is for writing your book. But, when I look at their books online, I see two things: many of those books have very few reviews, and that number of reviews tends to fall off a cliff from book one to book two. That tells me readers notice the difference in writing style and don't care to continue reading something written by a machine. Sure, someone might make a lot of money in the short-term by churning out books with AI, but they aren't building a readership or experiencing the joy of creation. How sad that they're missing out on those things.
Yes, thank you for this example and observation! It's obvious even if it's not obvious when writing lacks a human soul behind it.
This is SUCH a great point! I never considered myself a "writer" ... but I do participate in a writing group weekly, and have for nearly 5 years now. I can definitely see the evolution of my voice. I use the robots for social -- and while it kind of sounds like me, I often edit the posts or even do a total re-write because it isn't me... likely spending way too much time on social media posts as a result! 😆
Thank you - this is a great point. I'll also use it for short social post on LI, but I often end up editing a lot. Sometimes things that supposedly make our lives more efficient cost us more in terms of the time and effort to use them.
I wrote two articles on this subject. The first is about the way Chat homogenizes everything so that no one has a voice anymore. The second is about ESL and neurodivergents who use it to sound coherent but ultimately white-wash/neurotypical-wash away their identities by doing so. I don't mind if people use it as a tool, but taking it's every suggestion to tighten phrasing hurts my artist heart.
I agree about not taking all of its suggestions, and you make some great points about how it’s taking away the individual voices from those whose perspective we need the most right now.
One of the biggest professional development and reflective decisions I made as a writer was to publish a legacy collection of my short fiction. I got to see the evolution of my voice — and in editing each piece to be the best it could be upon republication — I got a master class in how my writing has improved over the years.
To see ideas I loved, that although they got published, missed the life experience and expertise to bring out the best in them.
Voice is one of those topics that’s talked about endlessly in fiction (or it used to be) as new writers angsted over “their voice” wanting to know how to find their voice.
Now it’s something people are willing to give away for convenience.
And as a former editor and smell press owner, voice is something you quickly become attuned to because you need to protect it during the editing process. Being an editor is about bringing out the best in that voice not totally changing it.
Like anything worth doing and doing well, writing requires dedication, effort and tenacity.
And for years I was always aghast when I published something with multiple typos or missed editing glitches — now it’s a hallmark of humanity and I love seeing them in my work. It signals that this is all mine. (And I took adore both the en and em dashes!)