Thankfully I don't see a ton. Youtube ends up recommending anything you click on and especially comment on. If you click off immediately youtube will take it as a signal to not recommend it.
So I'll click off of something AI extra fast to make the signal as strong as possible.
As a writer and editor, my problem with this is that very few people are any good at detecting AI. "AI slop" mostly means "I don't like this thing, and calling it 'AI slop' is the best way to turn other people against it".
A publisher I know had a book nominated for a "best cover art" award a few years ago. The nomination was almost immediately withdrawn for violating a non-existent "no AI" rule. The cover artist openly uses AI as part of the cover creation process, and talked about that quite publicly for more than a year before the nomination/withdrawal. When the ex post facto rule was made public (after the awards ceremony, of course), it was written so broadly that if it were followed, any covers that had ever been opened in Photoshop would have to be disqualified going forward. That, of course, hasn't happened. It was merely a pretext to target one artist (and possibly the publisher). Plus, two of the four remaining covers that were nominated also probably had AI in them. But once the scalp was claimed, nobody bothered with the rest.
This is not to say there is no obvious AI writing. Project Gutenberg began using AI to generate blurbs for its thousands of books, and the AI-ness of the blurbs is obvious and painful. But "AI slop" can be said by anybody, and is, and has become useful for manipulating people, and that's how it is used, not as an accurate analysis most of the time.
A publisher I work with has begun running manuscripts through an AI agent to find all the copy editing mistakes that the copy editors missed. There are absolutely legitimate uses for it, and the hysteria against it will subside in time.
I even sometimes use it to generate plot ideas, but not in the way you might think. I ask it to list X number of possible plots for a space opera, for instance, and then go "ugh, terrible, but what if I did this instead...?"
I am an AI critic; there is good and bad to AI. Some people take it to extremes; my friend uses ChatGPT to pick his pizza toppings, while I just use my brain for them.
There is good and bad to anything. And any new tool is used lazily by fools and midwits, always, particularly when it is first being adopted. No argument about any of that.
But, as a trivial example of what AI enables, I republish public domain books and stories. The ones that sell well sell maybe ten to twenty copies in a year. AI lets me put fresh new art on the covers, appropriate to the story (or at least the genre). There is no way I could afford $500+ per book for physical paintings for each cover. But I can create solid, appealing cover art all by myself, for the price of my Midjourney subscription. Not "ripping off" anybody, not failing to give business to artists I could not give business to in the first place. And adding real value to old books.
The grammar is correct. As noted above, I'm a professional writer and editor.
I not only stated a coherent position, but gave reasons supporting it. In other words, I made an argument.
Your responses have so far consisted of issuing an imperative, then sneering your contempt (again, why should anybody care what you think?) and engaging in repeated argumentum ad hominems.
You have nothing of substance to say. You're a poseur who thinks your feelings are important to anybody but you.
Log in
Another one:
AI;DW: AI, didn't watch.
It seems on YouTube that a lot of creators use AI.
Thankfully I don't see a ton. Youtube ends up recommending anything you click on and especially comment on. If you click off immediately youtube will take it as a signal to not recommend it.
So I'll click off of something AI extra fast to make the signal as strong as possible.
For awhile I got into ai YouTube videos about Spinoza. It inspired me to read what he really wrote tho.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror
As a writer and editor, my problem with this is that very few people are any good at detecting AI. "AI slop" mostly means "I don't like this thing, and calling it 'AI slop' is the best way to turn other people against it".
A publisher I know had a book nominated for a "best cover art" award a few years ago. The nomination was almost immediately withdrawn for violating a non-existent "no AI" rule. The cover artist openly uses AI as part of the cover creation process, and talked about that quite publicly for more than a year before the nomination/withdrawal. When the ex post facto rule was made public (after the awards ceremony, of course), it was written so broadly that if it were followed, any covers that had ever been opened in Photoshop would have to be disqualified going forward. That, of course, hasn't happened. It was merely a pretext to target one artist (and possibly the publisher). Plus, two of the four remaining covers that were nominated also probably had AI in them. But once the scalp was claimed, nobody bothered with the rest.
This is not to say there is no obvious AI writing. Project Gutenberg began using AI to generate blurbs for its thousands of books, and the AI-ness of the blurbs is obvious and painful. But "AI slop" can be said by anybody, and is, and has become useful for manipulating people, and that's how it is used, not as an accurate analysis most of the time.
I write with bad grammar and spelling mistakes because I don't use AI.
A publisher I work with has begun running manuscripts through an AI agent to find all the copy editing mistakes that the copy editors missed. There are absolutely legitimate uses for it, and the hysteria against it will subside in time.
I even sometimes use it to generate plot ideas, but not in the way you might think. I ask it to list X number of possible plots for a space opera, for instance, and then go "ugh, terrible, but what if I did this instead...?"
I am an AI critic; there is good and bad to AI. Some people take it to extremes; my friend uses ChatGPT to pick his pizza toppings, while I just use my brain for them.
There is good and bad to anything. And any new tool is used lazily by fools and midwits, always, particularly when it is first being adopted. No argument about any of that.
But, as a trivial example of what AI enables, I republish public domain books and stories. The ones that sell well sell maybe ten to twenty copies in a year. AI lets me put fresh new art on the covers, appropriate to the story (or at least the genre). There is no way I could afford $500+ per book for physical paintings for each cover. But I can create solid, appealing cover art all by myself, for the price of my Midjourney subscription. Not "ripping off" anybody, not failing to give business to artists I could not give business to in the first place. And adding real value to old books.
Stop trying to justify AI for art
Make me. You are not a dictator, and you get no say over my opinions.
Did ai write that retort
You think I'll bow down to your orders because you think you're witty? It'd be cute, if you had any wit.
Yeah I think you will cuz you have a very low iq and you trust authority.
And what you think should matter to me because...?
Poor grammar, run that one thru ai again
The grammar is correct. As noted above, I'm a professional writer and editor.
I not only stated a coherent position, but gave reasons supporting it. In other words, I made an argument.
Your responses have so far consisted of issuing an imperative, then sneering your contempt (again, why should anybody care what you think?) and engaging in repeated argumentum ad hominems.
You have nothing of substance to say. You're a poseur who thinks your feelings are important to anybody but you.
No it's not ask ai you'll see I'm right
People make grammar and spelling mistakes on purpose to help engagement, AI has learned this.