Let me give her a little credit. Her lecture on writing short stories is really good. I started writing short stories after that lecture. Now, there is a small thing that I think she missed (the impactful and a little unpredictable ending is a must for me), but everything else is solid. After that lecture I did notice that my natural scene lengths is around 750 words, which helped with the pacing.
Now, that book and the “allegations”. BlueSky crowd is incapable of noticing nuance - like, they will throw a tantrum over using AI for spelling or punctuation checks, and that crowd is unforgiving to anyone who strays away from the mainline.
And of course - they can’t commit to their insane behavior, so they change the rules. Again.
PS I’ve made multiple tests of the quality of AI writing, and it’s always lackluster. Makes you wonder - if a books is better with AI generated paragraphs (as we speculate here), then how meh would it be without it? It is possible to write worse than AI, you know.
In order to perform research without help from AI, one would have to go to the library and haunt the stacks. LLMs are on the front end of every search engine.
What these creators need to understand is that they should probably keep their damn mouths shut. Most creators who use AI and use it well are, in essence, doing exactly this because the dangers of revealing yourself to have used the help of it when you're on a pedestal is quite frankly deadly to one's career in the creative space.
A real artist doesn't ask for permission nor do they ask for approval. That's my take.
I hate all the leftist crap as much as anyone else, but understand this: I, and a lot of other conservatives like me, also hate the idea of AI being used as a "tool" for "writing", and won't buy such things. It's a lie, plain and simple, to use AI to help create your work and then try to sell it to me as if you were the creative force behind it. If people want to buy novels written by computers, fine, but anything that had AI involved in its creative process -- meaning anything other than for fact-based research purposes -- needs to be marked as such.
Do you draw the line at spell checkers? Grammar checkers? Is a Google search a lie because the researcher didn't use a card catalog and interlibrary loan? Can a writer use the sophomoric tools of Grammerly and not offend your august person and refined sensibilities?
Step back from the binary and realize that there is a huge difference between 'novels written by computers' and using modern technology to assist in the creative process. Being the 'creative force' doesn't entail 100% original philosophy hewn with a hand made cuneiform stylus.
Has anyone gone through her book to identify passages written with AI tells (i don’t mean em dashes or the word Delve)? I’m trying to get at: did she use AI for research and brainstorming on tech questions (the Mars stuff) or did AI write some of the passages in her book?
Apparently she didn't say. Which sounds worse than full disclosure.
What if she asked the google AI, "How does the gravity of Mars affect the fuel requirements to land compared to the moon landings?".
What then?
It's one thing if a person says write me a scene that does this. It's entirely different if an author asks how does this stack up against real possibilities.
Everyone wants to complain about AI, we're surrounded by it. Not just images and text, real world stuff that makes a difference.
It would be good if people identified how they used it. To me, the complaints sound like a lot of sour grapes most of the time. AI is a tool, like a pencil or a guitar.
There are so many on substack using AI to write though. Even if not full essays, I’ve seen several passages filled with AI tells. I instantly mute them
I get that. It becomes personal preference. I don't like reading AI content. I read an opinion piece on substack that was so clearly AI that it didn't matter if the content was valid, it wasn't an opinion of a person.
Idk. Just dont have it write the paragraphs. Don't let it work out the plot for you. But asking AI questions? It's just a more targeted Google search which has been 'enshitified' right?
Geez, what an article. I listened to Writing Excuses for years and that’s been my only exposure to Mary. I’ve never read her books but her advice on the podcast was solid. I’d argue those were the good years of the show before Sanderson got too busy and they brought in other folks. Like someone else said in the comments, “used AI” really needs to be defined before destroying someone over its use.
Let me give her a little credit. Her lecture on writing short stories is really good. I started writing short stories after that lecture. Now, there is a small thing that I think she missed (the impactful and a little unpredictable ending is a must for me), but everything else is solid. After that lecture I did notice that my natural scene lengths is around 750 words, which helped with the pacing.
Now, that book and the “allegations”. BlueSky crowd is incapable of noticing nuance - like, they will throw a tantrum over using AI for spelling or punctuation checks, and that crowd is unforgiving to anyone who strays away from the mainline.
And of course - they can’t commit to their insane behavior, so they change the rules. Again.
PS I’ve made multiple tests of the quality of AI writing, and it’s always lackluster. Makes you wonder - if a books is better with AI generated paragraphs (as we speculate here), then how meh would it be without it? It is possible to write worse than AI, you know.
She just Lady Astronaut nuked herself from orbit lol. Burn baby burn.
I think it's bizarre how generative llms have become the latest, most vitriolic purity test. It's the latest trendy thing to cancel people over.
In order to perform research without help from AI, one would have to go to the library and haunt the stacks. LLMs are on the front end of every search engine.
What these creators need to understand is that they should probably keep their damn mouths shut. Most creators who use AI and use it well are, in essence, doing exactly this because the dangers of revealing yourself to have used the help of it when you're on a pedestal is quite frankly deadly to one's career in the creative space.
A real artist doesn't ask for permission nor do they ask for approval. That's my take.
I hate all the leftist crap as much as anyone else, but understand this: I, and a lot of other conservatives like me, also hate the idea of AI being used as a "tool" for "writing", and won't buy such things. It's a lie, plain and simple, to use AI to help create your work and then try to sell it to me as if you were the creative force behind it. If people want to buy novels written by computers, fine, but anything that had AI involved in its creative process -- meaning anything other than for fact-based research purposes -- needs to be marked as such.
Do you draw the line at spell checkers? Grammar checkers? Is a Google search a lie because the researcher didn't use a card catalog and interlibrary loan? Can a writer use the sophomoric tools of Grammerly and not offend your august person and refined sensibilities?
Step back from the binary and realize that there is a huge difference between 'novels written by computers' and using modern technology to assist in the creative process. Being the 'creative force' doesn't entail 100% original philosophy hewn with a hand made cuneiform stylus.
Yes, the line would be drawn at spell checkers and google searches. Using your brain to writer your book is not this deep.
You make a compelling case for Grammarly.
Absolutely.
Her middle name is Robinette, just like Joe Biden, so you know she's low IQ, dishonest trash.
Has anyone gone through her book to identify passages written with AI tells (i don’t mean em dashes or the word Delve)? I’m trying to get at: did she use AI for research and brainstorming on tech questions (the Mars stuff) or did AI write some of the passages in her book?
Apparently she didn't say. Which sounds worse than full disclosure.
What if she asked the google AI, "How does the gravity of Mars affect the fuel requirements to land compared to the moon landings?".
What then?
It's one thing if a person says write me a scene that does this. It's entirely different if an author asks how does this stack up against real possibilities.
Everyone wants to complain about AI, we're surrounded by it. Not just images and text, real world stuff that makes a difference.
It would be good if people identified how they used it. To me, the complaints sound like a lot of sour grapes most of the time. AI is a tool, like a pencil or a guitar.
There are so many on substack using AI to write though. Even if not full essays, I’ve seen several passages filled with AI tells. I instantly mute them
I get that. It becomes personal preference. I don't like reading AI content. I read an opinion piece on substack that was so clearly AI that it didn't matter if the content was valid, it wasn't an opinion of a person.
See https://substack.com/@jamesluo/note/c-191997461?r=21n7r&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I bet it Brandon's wife's idea to bring her on as co-host
Idk. Just dont have it write the paragraphs. Don't let it work out the plot for you. But asking AI questions? It's just a more targeted Google search which has been 'enshitified' right?
The fact that she has a platform and calls herself a writer and then proceeds to use AI to write her book is unbelievable.
This is just one example of many to come of these "writers" and their laziness and blatant disrespect to the art of writing and creating.
Geez, what an article. I listened to Writing Excuses for years and that’s been my only exposure to Mary. I’ve never read her books but her advice on the podcast was solid. I’d argue those were the good years of the show before Sanderson got too busy and they brought in other folks. Like someone else said in the comments, “used AI” really needs to be defined before destroying someone over its use.
It's crazy how alike Twitter and Bluesky is on the dogpiling part.
It is nice she notes what tools she used and confusing she wants to stray from being a romance novel in space, but just became a sex novel in space.
As a lover of art and humanity and a hater of lazy, marxist artists this is an absolute win!