ChatGPT is overtly and covertly writing novels and short stories and the industry is freaking...

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,167   +1,421
Staff member
A hot potato: In case you haven't noticed, ChatGPT and machine-learning AI, in general, have been hot topics lately, with opinions swinging positively and negatively. On one side are proponents that think generative AI systems are the best thing since sliced bread and should be used for everything from constructing "original" images to writing poetry. Opponents passionately argue that these applications tread on the rights of creatives who put days, weeks, and months of work into their respective arts.

The latest bombshell to hit the ChatGPT spectrum is a report that as of mid-February, the AI has 200 or more books under its virtual belt published in Amazon's Kindle store. Reuters notes that some titles are "co-authored," but many are published as-is with no human intervention other than to submit the content and collect the money.

As far as anyone can tell, Amazon is trying to be as transparent as possible with AI-generated titles by tagging them ChatGPT and creating an entirely new section called "Books about using ChatGPT, written entirely by ChatGPT." However, those are just books that content creators admitted to using AI to complete the work. There could be hundreds more pumped out by less scrupulous "authors."

Despite the transparency, some in the industry fear that real authors will be hurt by a tidal wave of quickly produced mediocre books that water down the pool of quality work published by human writers. One writer Reuters spoke with went from concept to published work in a matter of a few hours. It was a children's book with ChatGPT producing the text, and another AI to generating "crude" drawings.

"This is something we really need to be worried about, these books will flood the market, and a lot of authors are going to be out of work," said Authors Guild's Executive Director Mary Rasenberger. "There needs to be transparency from the authors and the platforms about how these books are created, or you're going to end up with a lot of low-quality books."

Another content creator published an AI-generated sci-fi novella called "Galactic Pimp: Vol. 1" in less than a day that sells for $1 on Kindle. He claims that he, or anyone else, could easily churn out 300 or more similar works per year, and there is already mounting evidence to support that claim.

Science fiction magazine Clarkesworld, which has launched the careers of many budding authors, recently instituted a submissions freeze due to the sheer volume of AI-generated content it has recently received. Editor Neil Clarke wrote in his blog that by mid-February, the magazine had banned almost 350 accounts because of AI-generated content submissions. That number eclipses January's by nearly a factor of three in only 15 days. Five days later, bans spiked to over 500 (above). These numbers are account bans, and not even the volume of submissions Clarkesworld is getting.

Clarke says he first started noticing chatbot-generated stories toward the end of 2022. He would not say how he weeds these entries out, but for the most part, a plagiarism checker and some common sense can go a long way.

"I'm not going to detail how I know these stories are 'AI' spam or outline any of the data I have collected from these submissions," Clarke wrote. "There are some very obvious patterns, and I have no intention of helping those people become less likely to be caught."

Clarke provided a sample of a rejected submission to illustrate how "obvious" some of these submissions can be while noting that not all are this bad.

"Sitting on its three years' experience, the fittest Shell was originally the size of more android subliminal observations than any other single subject in the Grandma. Obey three hundred retorts can't even a couple was issued for wages to the apparently that dropped the storage station."

That was a poorly plagiarized passage from a story called "Human Error" by Raymond F. Jones, published in 1956. The original quote reads:

"During its three years' existence, the first Wheel was probably the subject of more amateur astronomical observations than any other single object in the heavens. Over three hundred reports came in when a call was issued for witnesses to the accident that destroyed the space station."

The problem is that sifting through hundreds or even thousands of horrible AI-written submissions is too time-consuming, even when aided by automated plagiarism checkers (which don't use AI, by the way). So Clarke had to pause submissions indefinitely until he can find a solution to the problem, damaging some legitimate writers' ability to get their work published.

Can AI-aided writers publish ethically? Sure, they can, and some will, but sadly most won't because the internet ruins everything.

Image credit: Robot Writer by Phonlamai Photo, Ban Chart by Neil Clarke

Permalink to story.

 
"Can AI-aided writers publish ethically? Sure, they can, and some will, but sadly most won't because the internet ruins everything."

LOL, "AI-aided". It will NEVER be ethical to fake having talent or a work ethic.
 
Told you so. In every segment of creative work (writing, painting, photography, etc) people with actual knowledge, experience and talent will be drowned out by the huge masses of AI generated content, and the actual pieces of value will be lost in all the AI generated noise.

It was already hard to make a living from creative work in the last one or two decades, and success was more a result of luck, not actual talent or effort, but this will now become like playing the lottery, which in turn will mean that real creative people with real talent will not find success, and will not (be able to afford to) create stuff.

Instead all we'll have will be reworks of reworks of reworks of content which itself was most likely also not original, but a product of an AI.... and this in and endless loop.
 
Last edited:
Me, fooling around with ChatGPT...
chat.png
 
Told you so. In every segment of creative work (writing, painting, photography, etc) people with actual knowledge, experience and talent will be drowned out by the huge masses of AI generated content, and the actual pieces of value will be lost in all the AI generated noise.

It was already hard to make a living from creative work in the last one or two decades, and success was more a result of luck, not actual talent or effort, but this will now become like playing the lottery, which in turn will mean that real creative people with real talent will not find success, and will not (be able to afford to) create stuff.

Instead all we'll have will be reworks of reworks of reworks of content which itself was most likely also not original, but a product of an AI.... and this in and endless loop.


Some good points - I suppose Patreon etc to help
With the industrial revolution we lost a lot of skilled craftsmen - you still see goldsmith , silversmiths , inlay, wood workers in developing countries .
Plus in well off areas - people will buy hand made items at a premium.

We saw the horrible effects of the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria - they probably have stone masons to recreate mosques - In countries like Italy also subject to earthquakes - I imagine stonemasons, stain glass specialists are in short supply.

Even in good times it can be hard for quality to rise to the top . Look at some Billionaires - right place , right time - Zuckerberg could never of made in in my country NZ - at a Uni- will a program to rate young women.

You have the Elvis , J K Rowling stories - past over by publishers/managers

People are just going to have to find a way - be master of a some additional stuff - That additional stuff can be energy sapping - many Patreon creators fold due just to the admin of running it - taking creative time away

Even at the company level - the best product may lose out to an inferior one.

I think AI assisted could definitely help - I remember reading Carrie as a 13 year old - good story, but even then I knew it was poorly written by King.

You have to get intrinsic value out of creating - many people do - I'm sure Dylan would make music no matter what.
Mozart , Van Gogt etc died poor
Lots of movies already by the numbers - by fearful backers
Creatives in Advertising may be worried as well - ie all those jobs that financed your passion to say be a director

On the flip side - you can make a indie movie with friends for less than $10 000 and publish it - don't have that film cost - which say Peter Jackson had making el cheapo horror moves starting out
 
I asked ChatGPT to write a few short stories about different things, the outline it used on all the stories were essentially the same. The only thing that changed were the characters.

It's like a developer going back and remaking an old game, but doing it over and over again and giving it a different name each time. The core material is essentially the same, it's just the characters that are different.

I'm not impressed and this click bait story about "the industry is freaking out" is just that, nothing more than click bait crap. Do better Techspot, do better.
 
I asked ChatGPT to write a few short stories about different things, the outline it used on all the stories were essentially the same. The only thing that changed were the characters.

It's like a developer going back and remaking an old game, but doing it over and over again and giving it a different name each time. The core material is essentially the same, it's just the characters that are different.

I'm not impressed and this click bait story about "the industry is freaking out" is just that, nothing more than click bait crap. Do better Techspot, do better.

I asked it - when I tried it out a week ago to write a story about an apple that wants to be a an orange - yeah it was the age old story - in the end the Apple realized it was great being an orange .
Now compare that to collections of short stories where there is normally always a twist.

I think it must be about priming - never used the image generator one - but it seems people spend an effort priming it - ingredients , conditions etc
Next time I will asked for a story with a surprise ending -maybe get a meteor fell from the sky an squashed the apple and a nearby orange- in the end we are all *******.

I did asked it what this very short story meant " newborn clothes for sale, unused"
It gave the correct interpretation - I ask it - if it was it's interpretation , or just copied from elsewhere - it said it was it's own - asked to rewrite it as a haiku - did an ok job.

It's early days - Baidu , Google, Microsoft , yandex etc are making their own - they will get better.
But like all tools - it's how you use them.

Just write action novels - make a straight forward plot - nice short action verbs with intent , some simple similes. metaphors alluding to violence, chicks, guns, cars .

Throw in some Dames - hey you an author - saying that some of the original noir authors had ability to write very good classic novels - and actually the economy of an action novel done well is not so easy to make it rise about the imitators - word order, flow, meter etc .

Next time will instruct Chapgpt to focus on characters - that's why The Hobbit , Tom Sawyer, Harry Potter did well - the background , story are the icing on the cake
 
I asked ChatGPT to write a few short stories about different things, the outline it used on all the stories were essentially the same. The only thing that changed were the characters.

It's like a developer going back and remaking an old game, but doing it over and over again and giving it a different name each time. The core material is essentially the same, it's just the characters that are different.

I'm not impressed and this click bait story about "the industry is freaking out" is just that, nothing more than click bait crap. Do better Techspot, do better.


I have to agree. fooling around with chatgpt myself I asked it to write a few short stories, with various characteristics and the result for each was laughable. It doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of certain words or describing phrases, and just inserts those defining terms verbatim into the "story" and in general isn't very capable of extrapolating the information you've given it unless they are already well known and documented things. Generally, when relating to fiction in my experience, it just spits out ambiguous and generic text based on your input without actually saying much or adding anything interesting. At this point in time its about as threatening to the fictional story market as a 8 year writing about things it has no comprehension of.
 
I have to agree. fooling around with chatgpt myself I asked it to write a few short stories, with various characteristics and the result for each was laughable. It doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of certain words or describing phrases, and just inserts those defining terms verbatim into the "story" and in general isn't very capable of extrapolating the information you've given it unless they are already well known and documented things. Generally, when relating to fiction in my experience, it just spits out ambiguous and generic text based on your input without actually saying much or adding anything interesting. At this point in time its about as threatening to the fictional story market as a 8 year writing about things it has no comprehension of.
Yes it is just a big cloud of words, there is no coherent thread or central ideas etc ... It is impressive that it can remember the topics you are discussing; but it can be used for more mechanical tasks, not writing novels.
 
This is happening because YouTubers are pumping out how to get rich videos using ChatGPT and this is the number 1 item on the list. It's also creating total garbage content. It's low effort low quality audio books on generic stuff. Primarily self help books and recycled information on random topics. Amazon needs to wipe out the practice entirely.
 
I would like to see what happens with the AI if you stopped giving it additional human feedback. Instead, you started training it only on AI generated text and pictures from now on. Since this is apparently the future, what will happen when the human element is removed? My guess is that in several years, what is being produced by the AI will be nothing but garbage. Stories that make no sense at all, pictures that are even more horrific than what it is producing now. AI is nothing without human feedback to train on. It might be able to do it faster and better than humans at times when training off of human information, but it relies on humans to have any comprehensible outcomes. I don't care if we allow it to advance 20 years, if the human element is removed eventually, it will decay into meaninglessness trained on only its own outputs.

AI has severe implications for mankind, but let's be clear, it is more of a Tower of Babel than a 'god' as some people is making it out to be. On its own it would produce nothing of value. Its ability to take the whole of human knowledge and algorithmically produce outcomes is indeed fascinating, but it does not think. It cannot reason what is true and what is not. It can only depend on what it is trained to be. This also means that it will be as bias as humans are bias, even more so likely because it will not be able to empathize or change its mind without new information. Impressive, sure, but it is certainly not what people make it out to be. It can't get better without better information, it will only decay left to its own. AI trained on AI will be a disaster.

The outcome of AI is control of knowledge. Whoever controls the AI will control what the AI is trained on. So, ideas that are no longer appreciated by the elite classes the AI will be trained to reject just as what the elite classes believe it will be trained to accept. This will then be touted as real knowledge when in fact the outcome is fully predictable. And so, its outputs will be religious dogma of elites that go unchallenged because the most significant AI programs willl be fully under the control of the elite classes. ChatGPT has already proven this to be the case, when you ask it a question, it's answers are predictable and predetermined to match exactly what you would expect from a leftist politician. Isn't that amazing?
 
Last edited:
I would like to see what happens with the AI if you stopped giving it additional human feedback. Instead, you started training it only on AI generated text and pictures from now on. Since this is apparently the future, what will happen when the human element is removed? My guess is that in several years, what is being produced by the AI will be nothing but garbage. Stories that make no sense at all, pictures that are even more horrific than what it is producing now. AI is nothing without human feedback to train on. It might be able to do it faster and better than humans at times when training off of human information, but it relies on humans to have any comprehensible outcomes. I don't care if we allow it to advance 20 years, if the human element is removed eventually, it will decay into meaninglessness trained on only its own outputs.
It just needs an evolutionary process to weed out the garbage programs. Obviously it's difficult having a decent scoring algorithm for writing novels (Amazon sales?) but if the game rules were simpler (kill all humans?) then it would be far easier to improve the programs.

In the same way you get programs like AlphaZero that barely know the rules of chess but, after playing itself millions of times, it becomes world champion in a couple of hours.

Personally, I actually look forward to having my first chat with a true AI (rather than a chatbot). Considering the advances we've seen in the last year, I can see that happening in the next 5 to 10 years. I can also see AI starting to make interesting discoveries in maths and physics. I understand it already played a part in developing the Corona virus vaccine.
 
News headlines in 20 years: "A team of journalist discovers that some AIs were using humans to write articles".
 
"Can AI-aided writers publish ethically? Sure, they can, and some will, but sadly most won't because the internet ruins everything."

LOL, "AI-aided". It will NEVER be ethical to fake having talent or a work ethic.
This is why using an abacus to do advanced math is the only way. Forget FORTRAN and transistor-based machinery crutches.

(It's a fallacy to equate how difficult something is to achieve with the quality of the achievement.)
 
Told you so. In every segment of creative work (writing, painting, photography, etc) people with actual knowledge, experience and talent will be drowned out by the huge masses of AI generated content, and the actual pieces of value will be lost in all the AI generated noise.

It was already hard to make a living from creative work in the last one or two decades, and success was more a result of luck, not actual talent or effort, but this will now become like playing the lottery, which in turn will mean that real creative people with real talent will not find success, and will not (be able to afford to) create stuff.

Instead all we'll have will be reworks of reworks of reworks of content which itself was most likely also not original, but a product of an AI.... and this in and endless loop.
Extremely talented people, like Mozart, had to be lucky enough to be born with silver spoons AND gain and retain wealthy patrons who were willing to support them. His best chance at patronage was ruined because the wife of that particular royal said 'We only hire useful people.'

The arts have always been about the top .1% looking in the mirror more than anything (+ money laundering these days). The rest of it is social control. In the world of painting, it was also once lucrative to depict pornographic scenes from Biblical literature, like Lot and his daughters. That was prior to photography. Wealthy men had the equivalent of Playboy on the walls of their mansions.

Van Gogh was only able to keep painting because of pure charity from his brother, a certain German tried and failed to have a career in art (turning instead to deadly politics), and Rembrandt didn't really die surrounded by lavish riches.
 
underrated!
:)
There is a famous trope in old sci-fi B movies wherein the brainy but foolish scientist tries to make friends with the monster of the moment, only to die screaming. The regular people have to be protected by Mr. Brawn with his guns and military background. (This theme is the basis, in disguise, of the most famous episode of Star Trek TOS, by the way.)

This is the same problem. At what point does scientific innovation destroy the people or transform their existence into something considered horrifying?
 
Back