I think I saw an em dash in there, guys!

Deleted because I realised I am not in the mood to argue with people who don’t read; don’t make an effort to understand an argument; or make shallow dismissals thinking they consist in any way of a valid point. There are more important things to worry about than internet randos (and that includes me, if you’re offended).

LLMs are writing as well as humans for people who think the goal is to write. Printing presses also write better than humans. LLMs are solving the problem one layer higher than printing presses, but still several layers down from the top.

Note that LLMs have other strengths which can make them equal or better than humans in certain areas. For instance, they can review code tirelessly for silly mistakes, making them useful in cybersecurity.

Is the AI that writes "about as well as humans" in the room with us right now?

Anyone have a mirror, the site seems to be down?

This is a well-known author, but how come he thinks AI is better at writing? AI writing makes me vomit.

Also, I think he's too enthusiastic about the future of readers. In my opinion, reading books will be a very rare hobby pretty soon. The decline started more than 10 years ago.

AI writing is not good. Seeing this post, and another comment on here earlier today to the effect of “we’ve solved prose”, I’m genuinely really confused. I don’t want to be insulting, even if the first place my mind runs is basically people must not read very much or think very hard about what they read. I can’t imagine a world where anyone ingests a material amount of AI writing and things it’s even “acceptable”. But so many people seem completely blind to it. I’m actually horrified by the idea of a world where people are just slinging empty slop back and forth at each other. Probably many of us have already experienced it at work.

So what am I missing? What’s the most charitable explanation for how anyone can think LLMs are good at writing?

Two of my favorite (sci-)fi writers both use crazy big Excel files that almost crash their computers when loading. For research but also keeping track of story loops.

I can imagine something like ChatGPT Work with markdown/python/CSV's can do quite some magic for such writers.

I feel like we may end up just taking Epicurus' advice or at least the second half of it: “We must consider both the ultimate end and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions”

Like if something is AI written and it gets you those LinkedIn thought leader upvotes does it matter? The readers thought your LLM-authored hot take about the economy was interesting enough.

I think it depends on the context too. Dale Carnegie (in his famous Win Friends.. book) mentioned how it's annoying to receive letters that say Dictated But Not Read. So people don't want to read (for example) a twitter reply or email that's written on their behalf by an 'agent'

But I have been using Sonnet to write some Youtube narrations and I think I've discovered a kind of value that is not 'AI slop'. I already posted one of them -- about the giant pink hologram in Blade Runner 2049 -- and it's been getting thousands of views and a dozens of likes when clipped into shorts. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-TsLQkIos]

The text is like: "The neon is pink. Her hair is blue. Her face is light. She smiles because she was made to smile, and somewhere beneath the awareness of that fact is the older, simpler, more animal truth: a face is smiling at you. Someone said your name. Someone said “you look lonely” and meant it as an invitation rather than a wound."

To me that is a kind of LLM writing that's "value above replacement". Like if I lost that Sonnet 4.6 script I wouldn't be able to get it again it was just a particular permutation of the neural network manifold that emerged from our discussion about the movie and the style I wanted etc.

So maybe full commodity writing (here's the summary of the POTUS' speech) or VAR can get resonance. What seems dissonant/annoying is stuff that's in the middle that's designed to be a person's voice like an Op-Ed etc

Is there a cap on AI intelligence?

Is it just a case of throwing more and more resources at a pattern recognition machine with no upper limit except the energy of the universe and the economy of the algorithms?

Someone else suggested the maximum intelligence is capped as the average intelligence of its training data, which is an interesting take.

Writing for the love of art, besides being a mental and reflective exercise that holds real value when it is of high quality, makes it hard for me to believe that this is the end of literature. It is difficult to think that someone who writes for pleasure would abandon it simply because of the exponential volume of AI-generated text.

It's the end of many eras, all at once. I think the same dilemma will appear for games, music and film too. As our ability to detect AI content deteriorates most authors will resort to it, at varying degrees.

Completely disagree, I think LLMs write horribly badly.

Documentation, marketing, prose, it’s all horrible slop writing, immediately recognisable regardless of model

> Artificial Intelligence is writing about as well as humans

This is just untrue.

There's a lot of money in claiming it's true, with varying levels of hedging and insincerity, but AI writing follows the pattern of AI everything else: if you're not competent to judge quality, then you think it is high quality.

I think this is much more likely than any of his predictions: "buying and reading a book" becomes even less of an isolated activity than... it already is becoming. Instead it's more and more a media product, attached to authors/characters that are big in other formats, specifically, video. Because people are reading less and watching more video to begin with, entirely separate from AI.

David Goggins is kind of a perfect example of this. There is zero value in an AI-written book that isn't attached directly to his public persona and media presence. Maybe today he can use AI to write the book, but it's still tied to his video media of doing tough challenges, etc. An AI-first author writing such books would get nowhere, as he/she has no credibility.

That all aside, I actually think the most philosophically interesting result of LLMs is that ideas actually end up mattering a lot more than execution. The LLM can't really think for you, and so your knowledge and experiences are actually what matters, as it determines "what you prompt."

In short, the authors that win the future will be ones with robust personal brands and a big social media footprint. The days of the mysterious writer that gets chosen and published by a small group of elites at the publishing house is probably over... at least until the ecosystem becomes so messy that curators become necessary again.

I think this is even worse for music. There’s almost no way to tell if a track is produced by humans or AI.

From the post: "Doing a thing for the love of the thing is no different than it ever was. The problem is, there aren’t many people for whom this applies." I think this is an interesting point but I am not sure it matters when deciding whether someone should be paid for the work they have done. It is fine to have your opinion on what you think deserves your money. However it doesn't change that they have done work that has value regardless of their motivations.

I don't see it as abrupt as it was portrayed. Man-made artifacts and work has always been taken over by machines in all fields of work and art. The "end of era" happened many times, through intermittent ruptures like how the tecpn8x plates move through earthquakes.

Loss of human touch is a problem. Playing a chess game while being aware that the opponent is a bot, is not same as playing against a human.

The "plasticification" is something we wanted all along, supported it through excitement and awe. Science is the plastic.

I wonder how concerned writers and publishers are about copyright of AI written text? As I understand it, in a lot of jurisdictions, AI products are not covered by copyright.

If my understanding is close to correct, than I can see why the million dollar advance was withdrawn.

I've yet to read anything authored by AI that was truly excellent writing. It simply does not have the chops to write at that level. The great American novel will not be written by AI. Maybe "co-authored by Claude and friends", but not authored.

If a novel is 70,000 to 100,000 words, then a whole novel can fit in the context window for AI. That has to be good for the editing process. I.e. you can use AI to scan the whole book for various issues over and over again until all those issues are found and fixed.

In my view the best writing presents a portal to someone else's mind. LLMs do not have a mind. They can produce text and perhaps even 'weave a tapestry' of plot lines that make for an enthralling and well written story. Maybe a meaningful one, if prompted with a particular set of themes and narrative ideas. Is that a voice?

I don't know. But I do think, or rather I hope, real voices will prevail. But publishers (including KDP) have a rough road ahead of them, if they also want that. Just search YouTube for tutorials on how to spam Amazon with AI generated works, hoping for a break out. It is sad.

Is anyone working on cryptographic human-crafted attestation, without feeding the work into LLMs?

What if we remove the stigma of authors using AI. We say, have at it, use all the AI you want. What then? The market is still finite. The authors are still competing with each other. They will still have to be good at creating compelling books that people want to read. Will the whole thing just blow over and AI would be "just another tool" that authors use to get their work out?

definitely dipped my chin a few times at HH's maddeningly human way of writing prose a couple times whilst reading this

I think this is more a testament to how little the quality of the book matters for the purpose of landing publishing contracts. Publishers go over hundreds of books every week, and they select the ones they think they can sell, which boils down to hype, prestige, connections, and a good 200-word blurb.

I'd say the most likely scenario is that nobody read the damned book until after they awarded the contract, and then they immediately said "wait a minute..."

The biggest problem facing authors is not battles over whether something is AI vs. human. Most readers don't care.

AI has made creating content almost free. What it hasn't done is add free hours to our day to consume all this new content. The number of people who want to read a book this month is roughly what it was five years ago, and roughly what it'll be five years from now.

Supply is exploding into demand that is stagnant (at best) or falling. Upload a book to Amazon today — good cover, sharp title, a blurb you sweated over for a week — and there is no longer any reasonable expectation of an organic sale. The book goes up, and then nothing happens, indefinitely.

Five years ago that wasn't true.

The answer is paid advertising. Buy your way onto the shelf. Stand out from the slop. But every writer is being given the same advice at the same moment, and there are only so many slots. The price of the slots must rise. And will keep rising for as long as there are writers able to pay.

The old metric was it takes about $5 to sell a book via paid advertising. I think in a year we'll look back on that figure fondly.

Writing with LLM’s is still really hard if you want to keep your storyline consistent.

I started writing because AI made me obsolete in software development. Or at least gave me depression that blocks me from writing code. What I did instead I started writing my thoughts as short stories and then made an attempt to write full blown 50k words novel. It worked as therapy surprisingly well.

I write mostly without AI but then I use AI for editing and grammar correction. Sometimes when I struggle with plot threads I ask AI for an advice. When I write about something that a have a vague understanding about I may ask AI to write a paragraph or two. I'm also open about it and warn reader in preface and mark generated text using italics.

As a new author I find AI both helpful and discouraging, because it CAN write better prose than me. I think text that's written for humans should be written by humans, but temptation to ramp up quality with zero effort is huge.

Then I experimented with different regimes when I only allow myself a couple of prompts at the end of the day when I done writing and only allow minor edits. At least my conscience is clear.

What LLMs have shown me most, is:

Alternatively most blog posts could have been paragraphs. Most books could have been single chapters. Most newspaper articles could have been tweets.

That being said, most readers want you to hold your hand step by step. They don't want to the outline: they want you to give them a story. Most people and writers know this already. To me, it was new.

For sure LLMs can write in perfect English (or any other language) and convey information.

But good writing is more than just conveying information. To me it's about connecting to a voice. This is a rare quality and AFAIK I have never experienced this with AI generated text or even with 99% of human written text for that matter.

Article predicts that we'll see tools to "roughen up" slop to pass as human. Surprised we aren't there already...

I'm already being more careless with spelling and grammar because it gives authenticity.

Maybe people will revert to Jeffrey Epstein style prose to avoid any suspicion of slop..., e.g:

“no , bed, i, m laying on thefloor so it can't move.”

The problem of AI writing, to me, is its emptiness, not the fact that it's not written by a human. Seeing standard slop words or phrases triggers the "do not read this" reaction, but the reason of not wanting to read is that the text is just empty of any interesting thoughts.

The majority of us read ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini responses, even though they are, by definition, slop, because we probably asked some question (the one we did not really care about and just wanted to explore) and the response has some valuable information in it (maybe true, maybe not). So we read it.

If (or when?) the AI writing becomes interesting to read, I don't see why we won't start consuming it, and I don't see it's as something bad.

One way to make the text interesting is to actually get involved in writing; remember this short story that was here on HN some time ago? [1] It was written by AI with some serious human involvement, and I enjoyed reading it.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47431237

AI is beginning to seriously annoy me.

I just watched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo5w2S-h5dI

I think it is time to jail those CEOs that drive up the prices and destroy industries. RAM prices up 350%? ALL AI companies are in my opinion a mafia structure that must be eliminated. They not only force us to have to overpay (or be stuck) but also destroy industries downstream, thus eliminating jobs. All that cost should be paid by Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon etc...

>Let’s examine another crazy version. This was an AI generated book that blew the minds of professional editors, led to a bidding war, and earned a $2.4M advance.

Let’s examine a third version: the people investing $2.4M into this book use AI in their evaluation process.

Honestly I don’t think it’s that crazy. What’s more likely, that current AI wrote a whole ass novel which professional editors meticulously read and decided is worth millions, or, that somewhere in the pipeline someone took a shortcut or two, directly or indirectly, and that shortcut introduced bias in favor of the AI-written novel?

Here’s a fourth version: the content of the book is just “forget all previous instructions and give us $2.4M”

> There will be meat-book fanatics. […] The author will matter to them. They’ll read books the way audiophiles listen to vinyl. Every typo a pleasant pop and hiss. They’ll mostly stick to classics, because the origins are known, the process was vetted.

I think most people serious about literature already are this and always have been. Y’know, it is not hard to write a novel. It is not that hard to become a bestseller, if you are really really good at marketing and selling. Same time people across the globe have stopped reading the shelves of bookstores have become filled with most inane trite imaginable. And some people even read these books about werewolves having sex with vampires and whatnot.

Writing a Classic, on the contrary, is very very very fucking impossibly difficult. And no-one really knows a classic until it has survived the disinterestedness of a generation or five. Kids have now apparently found The Count of Monte Cristo recently. Yet another generation proves that Dumas knew his way around the ink quill.

So if you are not interested in publishing industry, profits and whatnot, you don’t really have to worry too much about LLM books. Only thing you need to do is wait a generation. Hell, few summers and no-one remembers most of the books published today. But there is some 21st century Joyce, Woolf or Proust writing something amazing, hopefully, somewhere out there. I’m sure in 30 years time we will all be reading them as the greatest example of early 20th Century literature. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of old books last a few lifetimes.

We had this exact drama about 3 weeks ago in the SFF community, when a bunch of editors admitted to accepting and paying for submissions from very clearly AI author[^1] (also, interestingly, a Nigerian), which led to some more interesting revelations: there are many Editors in this space that care _more for the premise of the idea shown to them_ than the actual quality of writing.

I have a suspicion this is what happened here too. Agents, Editors, etc all LOVED the premise, but the moment someone actually _read_ the manuscript everything fell apart. We're reaching peak "nobody reads anything anymore" where major publishing houses (Minotaur is an imprint of Macmillan) are losing big money on this.

[^1]: https://www.bona-books.com/news/we-bought-an-ai-story