I have watched so many videos about how AI would change the world of literature but your comparison of Larry-Gwen-Hank-Tiffany hit me like a ton of bricks. Truly amazing stuff!
What is kinda important too - you CANNOT copyright ART STYLE. So if AI is learning how to do art by learning on your art and it doesn't do 1:1 copy it just getting inspired like human brain. If you take a look at Midjourney terms of use, you own graphic but you don't have copyright to it, everyone can remix it which is like producing graphics straight to public domain.
Just to piggyback on the photography comparison. I remember when digital photography was coming onto the scene, a lot of "real photographers" dismissed it as not real photography because you could see the result immediately and if it wasn't good you could just fiddle with the settings and take another photo, which some claimed took the "art" out of photography because you didn't have to get the exposure right without seeing the result, or know all of the techniques to get a proper exposure with film, also the quality of digital photography at first was so much worse than film, like 1MP, so it wasn't a viable alternative for professionals and was kind of seen as a gimmick. Then digital photography quality got really good (on par or better than film cameras), camera makers started making professional level digital cameras, with digital sensors that could outperform film in low light conditions, offered much more flexibility with RAW files that could be manipulated drastically allowing photos that were severely over or under exposed to be adjusted to a perfectly exposed image. Today, nobody questions if a photographer who shoots with a digital camera is a "real photographer". But, the cycle continues, now there are AI tools that will edit your photos, cull through thousands of wedding photography images and select only the best ones, crop images, straighten them...etc. and there are photographers that say if you use these tools, you're not a real photographer. I feel that's the cycle of all disrupting technology especially in artistic fields, Dismissal (It's not as good as the old way), Push Back (It's as good, but you aren't a real artist if you use it), Adoption (Everybody uses it). With AI writing I feel like we are in between the Dismissal and Push Back phase, the tools aren't as good as a human (yet) but it's getting harder to dismiss it as a gimmick.
I will also add that there are still film photographers, and there is still a demand for film photography, it's become kind of a niche, and I believe they can typically charge much more for their work.
My concern is that ai writing just isn't very good. When I have tried it on creative projects it's like hiring a mediocre writer at fivver, and I spend more time editing and rewriting than if I wrote it myself. And it doesn't seem to learn from my corrections and rewrites. Hopefully it will improve as time goes on.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Their higher level still is not great. No one has produced a truly great novel with AI. It has to be heavily edited just to be decent.
AI is letting me write my first draft in 10 days instead of 2 months. I don't like to give it any freedom on the story, but I give it tons of freedom on describing everything, and a little dialogue freedom. Mostly I write the equivalent of a screenplay, mostly dialogue, movement, and emotion directions, with few vivid prose, largely just trying to stay consistent to the character voice, and then let it expand and rewrite everything into an active version. It's amazing and efficient. I've said again and again, I believe that AI will democratize talent. We are moving to an idea an economy. Anyone can create just about anything. Right now, I'm creating a video game, based on a video game a hacker in my novel creates to teach the spiritual lesson. I've got no coding ability. No artistic ability. No understanding of 3D art. And yet, my little game is coming together. Ideas. Every day, I write down 10 ideas, whether its stories, games, movies, whatever it is, because that's where we're headed. An Idea Economy. Ideas and marketing, if you have those two things you'll be fine.
I really like that phrase you used: "democratize talent". That's so good. I agree. Those who will put in the hard work, learn the system and then wield that system to empower themselves and their work will win
@@cryptomancer2927 I right now am making trailers, action based trailers, with characters quoting the dialogue in my books, and using them in ads that send my book sales through the roof. When people stop trying to fight the future, they'll realize how much its not a threat if you're willing to work with it.
@@dukeofdenver and you'll fall behind and get devoured in a world that moves ahead without you. Technology is a tool. Learn to use it, or fall behind.
Wow, I rarely wholeheartedly agree with everything, but I love your way of thinking. People who embrace new ideas and concepts without running and jumping off a cliff with it, hoping it will save you both are likely to find more joy in life due to the excitement of the novelty. Also, closed minds never get fed.
Great subject to speak on. My personal feeling about this is that the human is still the storyteller. Storytelling is the true art form of people who call themselves writers, at least for novels. I am the storyteller and AI is the writer. It performs a technical task. While there are levels to writing that can elevate the writing itself to art, largely that is not what we see in most literature. We are looking for the story. Being a great writer will perhaps get you recognized for some award and might even sell a few books, but being a great storyteller can make your story, and perhaps you, immortal.
AI has been a huge helper in helping me in my writing and with my other creative works. It helps me create and realize my visions. It can be an amazing tool.
Now we got a great Tool to tell create the story we want. Learning how to use it will make the difference. In the long run the Quality of Storytelling for a Novel will rise way up!
For fiction writing which is entertainment, the reader is the final judge as to if they enjoyed the content. If using LLM's with A/I gets this done then is it wrong then to create this way? I say that as a older person who started in photography prior Photoshop and made the transition from film to digital because my colleagues in the wedding photography biz where switching over, and lets face it, pictures are better today then 30 years ago and are enhanced on the computer. - I say if you don't want to be replaced by technology then be a problem solver first! It's really hard to overcome that with anything other then human experience.
Can you show how to do the plot, plot twist, and how the how moves forward without boring the reader, and is unpredictable, and how every event connects.
Honestly, I worry if publishing corporations are able to block AI from learning from copyrighted material, we'll start to see the erosion of fair use for education purposes. Because the AI is learning in a way that's similar to humans, by observing and trying to replicate.
indeed, when I was a student couple of decades ago it was considered completely fine for a student to go to a university library and make xero-copies of whole books to learn at home - now this is considered a huge violation of copyright - the anti AI regulations will end up restricting the public's access to new knowledge further and further...
I get the comparisons about digital photography. Back in the day there was some snobbery over the new digital photography movement. It coincided with the scepticism over the cheap and commercial screw cap bottles of wine vs. the vintage corked bottle wine enthusiasts. The only thing I don’t get about your comparison is the amount of human involvement though. Whether you shoot on film or digital it’s your eyes, fingers and brain doing all the work. If you’re digital, you can examine your shot and take it again. However, I think a fairer comparison would be a ‘film’ photographer taking one shot on film using their eye and instincts and walking home and developing it, and an AI photographer putting their camera on a tripod hooked up to a device and the AI app taking the photo for them and adjusting all the controls based on algorithms of previously successful photographers.
The movie industry is also migrating from ‘film’ cameras to digital cameras. The main benefit is longer shooting times. If you’re in a helicopter filming an epic stunt you want to be using Sony digital cameras so you get more than one chance at filming it properly. However, whether you shoot movies on film or digital it’s still 100% human involvement. The camera lens choices are critical. The only alternative to doing either is using AI to imitate the live action in a computer programme in a studio. AI would not be used to control the camera filming the action.
The cinematographer would always be required to shoot the stunt scene and make the lens choices. It wouldn’t be possible to replace the cinematographer with an AI program using algorithms of other mid air stunt scenes to guide it.
And what about music. I like to put background music on my UA-cam videos that are used to teach, instruct, and to help me with my research. I make this music in Suno, but I don't make any money on the videos. Does this violate copywrite?
In your last video "it writes like me now", you mentioned including a link to the prompt but multiple people have been having difficulty finding it even after signing up for your newsletter and providing the email for your free resources section. I am one of them. I clicked the free resources link, provided my email, and nothing. Perhaps we're just being dense. Could you help us navigate out of our ineptitude?
You stated your arguments and framed things in such a good way that it has really led to a lot of relief on my end. I guess the real problem is that the people watching this video are likely going to be reasonable, like you. But the people that were arguing with are completely unhinged and refused to hear reasonable arguments
I have a solution. The music industry has a pin number that can be embedded in wav files and various mediums to track licensed sales to cover royalties. Authors should be able to embed text with such pins. There would have to be changes in computer systems, but eventually, if text is cut and pasted, the pin goes with it. even if it's a character. You could store 50+ in a single string with hashing in the metadata.
? nobody cuts any characters, just the probabilities, e.g. of the word "cat" being associated more often with the word "black" than with the word "pink" in the large corpus of a whole language.
Well the Old Mermaid is exactly a great example of the power of AI. Before you literally needed an artist that was going to draw you a picture of an Old Mermaid, and nobody with that level of talent is going to do that. Now there are people who are less talented but more creative that can produce high quality images of old mermaids. This is what the democratization of creativity looks like. That said, AI is a tool of the wealthy, in that once the barrier to creativity falls, the price of marketing will sky rocket (a.k.a selling pick axes in a gold rush).
well, one could write some copyrighted fanfiction and keep polishing on it while waiting for the copyright to expire, if this is set to expire during one's expected lifetime...
The work week used to be 80 hours a week and Henry Ford changed it to 40 hours a week. There is no reason that it can't drop to 20 hours a week and companies have to pay an AI or robot tax for each job that is replaced by AI. If companies want to off shore to escape the AI tax then just impose tariffs on incoming goods. Goods should also get cheaper as companies compete against each other.
thing of the growing amount of the elderly with fewer and fewer descendants, whose few descendants have to work and have no time to care for their old folk... A nice AI robot could be a reliable companion and call the real person relative only in real emergencies...
AI learns by "looking" at other stories. New writers learn by "looking" at other works too. Do you think that any writer creates a stores before reading somebody else's writings? No! That's not very likely, don't you think? I think that our lives have lots of stories of all kinds and in many venues. I think that's how we learn the most about stories.
Unfortunately, we'll always have the Billy Couls of the world (Willy's Chocolate Experience guy) who will abuse AI, but that comes with every technological advancement. Most people, I believe, will use AI as intended.
TLLM's, Art, etc., AI generator models are basically, fundamentally random word (token), pixel generators. Settings (temp, cfg, etc.) limit the randomness somewhat but hallucinations still happen. I think it is kinda funny people are being outperformed, replaced, and afraid of random stuff generators. People better get off the Luddite pot and learn to use the tool and make themselves still useful and better than they could be with out it.
AI + RAG is more valuable to me than actually assisting with writing. It's helped me flesh out a huge sci-fi world through recursive improvement. It generates a cool idea, add it to the RAG, feed it back in, comes up with another cool idea, add it, and after a while, comes up with stuff that just blows my mind sometimes. It just keeps blooming. Then, from all that stuff, new story ideas and hooks just rain down.
I personally disagree. As a reader I attach to the author as much as the story. When my favorite authors release a book I'll buy it out of hand without even needing to wait for reviews because I love their work. I don't foresee people attaching to AI in the same way. There's no personal connection there. AI is going to displace the vast majority of the workforce over time, that's a given, but there are areas where I think people will always prefer the human touch: 1. Art - including writing 2. Medical services 3. Physical services like massage therapy 4. Clergy
You forget that without a human, AI can do nothing. I guarantee you within a few months (if not already) you’ll read AI text that was specifically chosen by the author in such a way that it might as well be their vision and you will never know it was written with AI. Because it’s just another way for authors to manifest their vision, just like dictation, a keyboard, or any other technology.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Yeah, I probably could have been more clear. I use AI in my writing, it's great. I was referring to those that try to have AI write entire scenes, chapters, or novels as some people seem bent on doing. If you're guiding the AI through every step of the story at the scene beat level, the story is very much the authors and not the AI's. That's one of the biggest things that people attach to, the story telling, and to control that, you really need to be directing at the scene beat level just like a movie director would. People also get drawn to literary fiction for the way that a given author writes, Patrick Rothfuss is a perfect example.
I am definitely not an AI-hater and find your channel and process fascinating, but I am growing increasingly suspicious though my experimentation with AI about how it is in fact potentially passing on copyright-infringing concepts from pre-existing works to the users. What I am slowly learning is that while AI DOES NOT pull chunks of text from other authors as some may think (thus no copyright infringement at the micro level) it is definitely sometimes presenting me with major core ideas and concepts from other works that are too unique, and thus ultimately hovering close to infringing upon the unique expression of other artists. Copyright infringement does not JUST happen at the micro level - it can happen at the macro level too. For example, in one brainstorming session, Chat GPT essentially gave me a key character from a novel by a very successful science fiction author (who I will refrain from mentioning) without telling me the source of the idea for the character, and then in the same session, it presented me with the exact name for that character which the author used, making it very likely I could have accidentally infringed copyright had I used both the unique concept for that character and the possible name it gave me. Then, as a test, I started a new conversation in my Claude AI account and asked it to brainstorm plot ideas for me that were roughly similar to my interests, and it actually started to steal from plots of mine I had discussed with it in previous conversations, Frankensteining them together in laughably obvious ways. It was then that I really saw that if the AI had been trained on a publicly available novel of mine, it could very easy present the unique expression of it to another writer to essentially steal from. The new writer might legally get away with it, but it would be considered unethical plagiarism if people noticed it, and seeing as he wouldn't really know where the ideas came from, he would be oblivious to it. People do not have to be consciously infringing copyright to be guilty of it. Under normal conditions, in copyright suits, one has to prove the infringer has access to the pre-existing work, but if the writer is using AI then access is automatic, because the AI is trained on almost everything. So, the AI can easily borrow too much of the core of another work - enough to infringe on the unique expression of another artist. I think we are going to see a ton of lawsuits in coming years and it will be a minefield. AI has so many great uses, but one has to be soooooooooo careful they don't accidentally infringe. The only way to do that really is to create the core of the story and characters yourself, and also ingest a ton of your own style into the prose, just to be safe - only really taking the de minimus much of the time. Copyright is a very misunderstood topic - most people really don't know how it works and what is infringing and what is not. Since we live in a word in which Luc Besson was found guilty of infringing John Carpenter's 1981 from Escape from New York with his film 2012 film Lockout, you can see how infringement can definitely be done at the macro level, and AI could very easily cause that to happen. I think your Dracula project is safe, because Dracula is public domain and you came up with much of the plot on your own, so it was a good test run, but getting the AI to invent more from scratch is quite dangerous, I think.
You raise a very good point. IMHO, I think it will be vital due authors to do multiple revisions and development to ensure there is no copy right infringement.
As I’ve been using AI, I’ve noticed that it pulls a lot out of stereotypes and commonly used tropes, names, and backstories. So I think the key here is if you are relying on AI to give you an original idea, you have to remember what it’s being trained on… if you want it to be original you can’t rely on what it’s been trained on, that will likely make it easy for you to fall into very common material that’s either been over done or over used. And to be honest, without AI we already get a lot of the same stories without AI. So how can we expect AI to stay away from that? The best way to use AI is to amplify YOU. Your thoughts, your experiences, your ideas, and make them your own. Because there’s only one you out there right? Just be true to yourself and if you see AI falling into common stories, etc that are already out there, steer it away! Because if you don’t, your work will be generic and just like everyone else’s. When I have brainstorming sessions and AI tries to steer my plotting on a specific path I tell it no, I want you to go this way… and honestly it makes my work more unique because I am intentionally going against the status quo.
DAYLIGHT VIEWS OF THE TOWER Free user-The image of the Eiffel Tower by day falls within the public domain: its use is rights-free, and may therefore be reproduced without prior authorisation by the SETE, the managing company of the image of the Eiffel Tower on behalf of the Mairie de Paris. THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use-The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc.
Look, your ideas don't matter; your esthetics do. You don't speak to the soul with ideas. You speak to the soul with esthetics. Can sophisticated algorithm do that?
AI Image generators can indeed combine visual ideas in interesting and novel ways- which is a kind of creativity- but true creativity requries intent and the desire to communicate, which AI's do not have. So AI Art is a kind of trick in which the machine combines patterns from it's training data into new configurations that appear to be the outcome of deliberate intent but are in fact statistically determined, expressions of the weighted reponse of the machine to the prompts input by the user. People create art or write novels in order to convey meaning, to tell stories, and this intentionality is what we respond to when we engage with human creative works. AI's lack any understanding of the meaning in the patterns they generate, they really are just probability engines that combine abstracted tokens from their training data in superfically novel ways. So while the outputs of AI's can at first sight resemble the human creations upon which they were trained these outputs in the end are unsatisfying and oddly repetitive- when you've seen one gallary of AI Art you've seen them all- they share a common lack of geninely engaging images, once you get past the glossy technique and hypersaturated colors. We all know deep down that no LLM will ever write a 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Dune' because these great works of imagination arose from- and are expressions of- their authors total life experience- a complex blend of the intellectual, emotional, historical and existential experience of those particular human beings that led their own unique lives, lives that were shaped by war and technological change, social movements and economic ebbs and flows that they in turn responded to in ways that were shaped by their own individual mental and physical attributes, these being the outcome of genetic dispostions that were themselves the product of millions of years of evolutionary change and development. The notion that a glorified calculator allocating weights via a statisical pattern matcher could ever even begin to match the creative capability of a Tolkien or Herbert is to me nonsensical- the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, we ourselves barely understand it, and anyone who claims to have recreated that complexity by assembling a vast data set from which to derive patterns is either deceiving themselves or everyone else-or both.
I disagree with the path you are pointing out. It is the path of human enslavement by AI, precisely the path we need to avoid. It doesn't matter how "lazy" the human is; if today he can work with something (whatever it may be) and pay their bills with it, and if with AI he will lose his job, then it is wrong. Besides, it is very difficult to judge what "working little" means. And AIs will continue to evolve. What is considered "working enough" today will be "working little" tomorrow, the more AI evolves. This cat-and-mouse game of machine against man is inhumane. Personally, I can only think of one fair option to uphold the principle of "the machine serving man" rather than "man serving the machine," which is universal basic income. And from there, people would do what they enjoy, instead of having to "work harder and harder."
All technologies cause similar disruption. Once the dust settles the job market will be at similar levels. Perhaps even better than it was before. The only difference is that the types of jobs will be different. And many will probably be greatly improved, as AI can remove the more mundane tasks that people don’t enjoy doing anyway.
@@TheNerdyNovelist It has to be edited. It sucks on its own. Emotion can not be duplicated by math. People are not ranking poetry written and chosen by AI as good.
Authors of ALL people have had the weakest anti ai arguments given the fact that its almost become industry standard advice to "take ideas and add your own twist". "Stealing" is outright recommended in most cases and most of the fiction market is flooded with retellings. Authors should be the last ones shaming ai and the first ones embracing it
"AI is just a tool" is shortsighted. If you have seen Claude with computer use you have seen the one of the first steps toward agentic workflows. Right now generative AI is just prompt and response, but in the coming months we will see greater and greater expansion into multi-step automation. Soon AI won't need a human in the loop. It will be able to operate fully independently and do everything better, faster, cheaper, and safer than humans can. The value of all human labor is going to zero.
So here’s the question. Imagine that we’ve always lived that way, with AI doing all of the necessary work. How would we live then? Because I guarantee you humans will still have a drive to do something. It won’t be like Wall-E.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Humans can do whatever they want, it just won't be economically impactful because our level of productivity will become increasingly insignificant over time. The only viable path for continuing human relevance I can see is posthumanism integrating AI into thought and memory essentially merging with it. It sounds like science fiction, but Neuralink is real.
I have watched so many videos about how AI would change the world of literature but your comparison of Larry-Gwen-Hank-Tiffany hit me like a ton of bricks. Truly amazing stuff!
What is kinda important too - you CANNOT copyright ART STYLE. So if AI is learning how to do art by learning on your art and it doesn't do 1:1 copy it just getting inspired like human brain. If you take a look at Midjourney terms of use, you own graphic but you don't have copyright to it, everyone can remix it which is like producing graphics straight to public domain.
I love your optimism. I'm so sick of the anti AI vitrol.
What did you say?
Exactly.
Just to piggyback on the photography comparison. I remember when digital photography was coming onto the scene, a lot of "real photographers" dismissed it as not real photography because you could see the result immediately and if it wasn't good you could just fiddle with the settings and take another photo, which some claimed took the "art" out of photography because you didn't have to get the exposure right without seeing the result, or know all of the techniques to get a proper exposure with film, also the quality of digital photography at first was so much worse than film, like 1MP, so it wasn't a viable alternative for professionals and was kind of seen as a gimmick.
Then digital photography quality got really good (on par or better than film cameras), camera makers started making professional level digital cameras, with digital sensors that could outperform film in low light conditions, offered much more flexibility with RAW files that could be manipulated drastically allowing photos that were severely over or under exposed to be adjusted to a perfectly exposed image. Today, nobody questions if a photographer who shoots with a digital camera is a "real photographer".
But, the cycle continues, now there are AI tools that will edit your photos, cull through thousands of wedding photography images and select only the best ones, crop images, straighten them...etc. and there are photographers that say if you use these tools, you're not a real photographer. I feel that's the cycle of all disrupting technology especially in artistic fields, Dismissal (It's not as good as the old way), Push Back (It's as good, but you aren't a real artist if you use it), Adoption (Everybody uses it). With AI writing I feel like we are in between the Dismissal and Push Back phase, the tools aren't as good as a human (yet) but it's getting harder to dismiss it as a gimmick.
I will also add that there are still film photographers, and there is still a demand for film photography, it's become kind of a niche, and I believe they can typically charge much more for their work.
My concern is that ai writing just isn't very good. When I have tried it on creative projects it's like hiring a mediocre writer at fivver, and I spend more time editing and rewriting than if I wrote it myself. And it doesn't seem to learn from my corrections and rewrites. Hopefully it will improve as time goes on.
You might want to spend some time working on prompting. I know many authors who are able to get it to a higher level.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Thanks, I'll give it a try! Can you recommend any of your vids specifically dealing with prompting for higher quality writing?
@@TheNerdyNovelist Their higher level still is not great. No one has produced a truly great novel with AI. It has to be heavily edited just to be decent.
AI is letting me write my first draft in 10 days instead of 2 months. I don't like to give it any freedom on the story, but I give it tons of freedom on describing everything, and a little dialogue freedom. Mostly I write the equivalent of a screenplay, mostly dialogue, movement, and emotion directions, with few vivid prose, largely just trying to stay consistent to the character voice, and then let it expand and rewrite everything into an active version. It's amazing and efficient.
I've said again and again, I believe that AI will democratize talent.
We are moving to an idea an economy. Anyone can create just about anything.
Right now, I'm creating a video game, based on a video game a hacker in my novel creates to teach the spiritual lesson. I've got no coding ability. No artistic ability. No understanding of 3D art. And yet, my little game is coming together.
Ideas. Every day, I write down 10 ideas, whether its stories, games, movies, whatever it is, because that's where we're headed. An Idea Economy.
Ideas and marketing, if you have those two things you'll be fine.
I really like that phrase you used: "democratize talent". That's so good. I agree. Those who will put in the hard work, learn the system and then wield that system to empower themselves and their work will win
@@cryptomancer2927 I right now am making trailers, action based trailers, with characters quoting the dialogue in my books, and using them in ads that send my book sales through the roof.
When people stop trying to fight the future, they'll realize how much its not a threat if you're willing to work with it.
Yes 100% idea is the currency.. Not the technique.
You're making slop
@@dukeofdenver and you'll fall behind and get devoured in a world that moves ahead without you.
Technology is a tool. Learn to use it, or fall behind.
Wow, I rarely wholeheartedly agree with everything, but I love your way of thinking. People who embrace new ideas and concepts without running and jumping off a cliff with it, hoping it will save you both are likely to find more joy in life due to the excitement of the novelty. Also, closed minds never get fed.
A person on Facebook said AI is not intelligent. It is an amplifier.
A person on Facebook said what??
That whole sentence was designed by hypnotists at the CIA
Great subject to speak on.
My personal feeling about this is that the human is still the storyteller. Storytelling is the true art form of people who call themselves writers, at least for novels. I am the storyteller and AI is the writer. It performs a technical task. While there are levels to writing that can elevate the writing itself to art, largely that is not what we see in most literature. We are looking for the story. Being a great writer will perhaps get you recognized for some award and might even sell a few books, but being a great storyteller can make your story, and perhaps you, immortal.
Man, what a fantastic take, and right on the nose. This harkens back to the oratory form of storytelling.
Yes creativity is the currency.. Ai just helps bridge the gap between the techniques involved with bringing that creativity to life.
AI has been a huge helper in helping me in my writing and with my other creative works. It helps me create and realize my visions. It can be an amazing tool.
Should've used AI to write your comment. It sounds stilted.
Great stuff! Thanks for the insights. It was a pleasure to chat with you at Author Nation. Would love to see you present there next year.
This is very well put together. Absolutely hit all the right notes.
Now we got a great Tool to tell create the story we want. Learning how to use it will make the difference.
In the long run the Quality of Storytelling for a Novel will rise way up!
For fiction writing which is entertainment, the reader is the final judge as to if they enjoyed the content. If using LLM's with A/I gets this done then is it wrong then to create this way? I say that as a older person who started in photography prior Photoshop and made the transition from film to digital because my colleagues in the wedding photography biz where switching over, and lets face it, pictures are better today then 30 years ago and are enhanced on the computer. - I say if you don't want to be replaced by technology then be a problem solver first! It's really hard to overcome that with anything other then human experience.
I was an unlucky copywriter that lost my job to it. But a bit of schadenfreude to see how bad and cliche their ads are now...
I been looking into these copywrite issues as well. With you putting the image up on this UA-cam video, does that not violate copywrite laws?
it could if he took money for selling it, but not when he uses it as a demonstration of a concept
@@Chociewitka Thanks!
And this is why I am running to Bluesky. At the same time ad spend is critical to growth. The question is where to spend it.
Can you show how to do the plot, plot twist, and how the how moves forward without boring the reader, and is unpredictable, and how every event connects.
See my videos on story structure.
Honestly, I worry if publishing corporations are able to block AI from learning from copyrighted material, we'll start to see the erosion of fair use for education purposes. Because the AI is learning in a way that's similar to humans, by observing and trying to replicate.
indeed, when I was a student couple of decades ago it was considered completely fine for a student to go to a university library and make xero-copies of whole books to learn at home - now this is considered a huge violation of copyright - the anti AI regulations will end up restricting the public's access to new knowledge further and further...
I get the comparisons about digital photography. Back in the day there was some snobbery over the new digital photography movement. It coincided with the scepticism over the cheap and commercial screw cap bottles of wine vs. the vintage corked bottle wine enthusiasts. The only thing I don’t get about your comparison is the amount of human involvement though. Whether you shoot on film or digital it’s your eyes, fingers and brain doing all the work. If you’re digital, you can examine your shot and take it again. However, I think a fairer comparison would be a ‘film’ photographer taking one shot on film using their eye and instincts and walking home and developing it, and an AI photographer putting their camera on a tripod hooked up to a device and the AI app taking the photo for them and adjusting all the controls based on algorithms of previously successful photographers.
The movie industry is also migrating from ‘film’ cameras to digital cameras. The main benefit is longer shooting times. If you’re in a helicopter filming an epic stunt you want to be using Sony digital cameras so you get more than one chance at filming it properly. However, whether you shoot movies on film or digital it’s still 100% human involvement. The camera lens choices are critical. The only alternative to doing either is using AI to imitate the live action in a computer programme in a studio. AI would not be used to control the camera filming the action.
The cinematographer would always be required to shoot the stunt scene and make the lens choices. It wouldn’t be possible to replace the cinematographer with an AI program using algorithms of other mid air stunt scenes to guide it.
And what about music. I like to put background music on my UA-cam videos that are used to teach, instruct, and to help me with my research. I make this music in Suno, but I don't make any money on the videos. Does this violate copywrite?
Great video, Jason!
Prior we had to travel to Italy to see the Mona Lisa now everyone can see it as a picture . It was better before art is precious
In your last video "it writes like me now", you mentioned including a link to the prompt but multiple people have been having difficulty finding it even after signing up for your newsletter and providing the email for your free resources section. I am one of them. I clicked the free resources link, provided my email, and nothing. Perhaps we're just being dense. Could you help us navigate out of our ineptitude?
Email us at jason@storyhacker.ai
You stated your arguments and framed things in such a good way that it has really led to a lot of relief on my end. I guess the real problem is that the people watching this video are likely going to be reasonable, like you. But the people that were arguing with are completely unhinged and refused to hear reasonable arguments
Haters gonna hate.
I have a solution. The music industry has a pin number that can be embedded in wav files and various mediums to track licensed sales to cover royalties. Authors should be able to embed text with such pins. There would have to be changes in computer systems, but eventually, if text is cut and pasted, the pin goes with it. even if it's a character. You could store 50+ in a single string with hashing in the metadata.
? nobody cuts any characters, just the probabilities, e.g. of the word "cat" being associated more often with the word "black" than with the word "pink" in the large corpus of a whole language.
This is one of your best ones
The bigger concern right now with AI is running out of quality source material for training. How might that be addressed?
A combination of synthetic training data, newer human written material to fine tune, and improvements in the underlying tech.
Well the Old Mermaid is exactly a great example of the power of AI.
Before you literally needed an artist that was going to draw you a picture of an Old Mermaid, and nobody with that level of talent is going to do that.
Now there are people who are less talented but more creative that can produce high quality images of old mermaids.
This is what the democratization of creativity looks like. That said, AI is a tool of the wealthy, in that once the barrier to creativity falls, the price of marketing will sky rocket (a.k.a selling pick axes in a gold rush).
well, one could write some copyrighted fanfiction and keep polishing on it while waiting for the copyright to expire, if this is set to expire during one's expected lifetime...
I admire your fortitude!
Great video!
The work week used to be 80 hours a week and Henry Ford changed it to 40 hours a week. There is no reason that it can't drop to 20 hours a week and companies have to pay an AI or robot tax for each job that is replaced by AI. If companies want to off shore to escape the AI tax then just impose tariffs on incoming goods. Goods should also get cheaper as companies compete against each other.
thing of the growing amount of the elderly with fewer and fewer descendants, whose few descendants have to work and have no time to care for their old folk... A nice AI robot could be a reliable companion and call the real person relative only in real emergencies...
AI learns by "looking" at other stories. New writers learn by "looking" at other works too. Do you think that any writer creates a stores before reading somebody else's writings? No! That's not very likely, don't you think? I think that our lives have lots of stories of all kinds and in many venues. I think that's how we learn the most about stories.
And next level is Facebook where not even Ads give exposure
If that were true, FB would eventually start losing money because people would leave the platform and stop paying for ads.
Unfortunately, we'll always have the Billy Couls of the world (Willy's Chocolate Experience guy) who will abuse AI, but that comes with every technological advancement. Most people, I believe, will use AI as intended.
TLLM's, Art, etc., AI generator models are basically, fundamentally random word (token), pixel generators. Settings (temp, cfg, etc.) limit the randomness somewhat but hallucinations still happen. I think it is kinda funny people are being outperformed, replaced, and afraid of random stuff generators. People better get off the Luddite pot and learn to use the tool and make themselves still useful and better than they could be with out it.
AI + RAG is more valuable to me than actually assisting with writing. It's helped me flesh out a huge sci-fi world through recursive improvement. It generates a cool idea, add it to the RAG, feed it back in, comes up with another cool idea, add it, and after a while, comes up with stuff that just blows my mind sometimes. It just keeps blooming. Then, from all that stuff, new story ideas and hooks just rain down.
What?
Great vid. I still think bro is a bot sent from the future to make us to feel good about ai.
Error. Mission compromised.
@@TheNerdyNovelist 🤣
very interesting... we must think in this...
I personally disagree. As a reader I attach to the author as much as the story. When my favorite authors release a book I'll buy it out of hand without even needing to wait for reviews because I love their work. I don't foresee people attaching to AI in the same way. There's no personal connection there.
AI is going to displace the vast majority of the workforce over time, that's a given, but there are areas where I think people will always prefer the human touch:
1. Art - including writing
2. Medical services
3. Physical services like massage therapy
4. Clergy
You forget that without a human, AI can do nothing. I guarantee you within a few months (if not already) you’ll read AI text that was specifically chosen by the author in such a way that it might as well be their vision and you will never know it was written with AI. Because it’s just another way for authors to manifest their vision, just like dictation, a keyboard, or any other technology.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Yeah, I probably could have been more clear. I use AI in my writing, it's great. I was referring to those that try to have AI write entire scenes, chapters, or novels as some people seem bent on doing. If you're guiding the AI through every step of the story at the scene beat level, the story is very much the authors and not the AI's.
That's one of the biggest things that people attach to, the story telling, and to control that, you really need to be directing at the scene beat level just like a movie director would. People also get drawn to literary fiction for the way that a given author writes, Patrick Rothfuss is a perfect example.
I am definitely not an AI-hater and find your channel and process fascinating, but I am growing increasingly suspicious though my experimentation with AI about how it is in fact potentially passing on copyright-infringing concepts from pre-existing works to the users. What I am slowly learning is that while AI DOES NOT pull chunks of text from other authors as some may think (thus no copyright infringement at the micro level) it is definitely sometimes presenting me with major core ideas and concepts from other works that are too unique, and thus ultimately hovering close to infringing upon the unique expression of other artists. Copyright infringement does not JUST happen at the micro level - it can happen at the macro level too. For example, in one brainstorming session, Chat GPT essentially gave me a key character from a novel by a very successful science fiction author (who I will refrain from mentioning) without telling me the source of the idea for the character, and then in the same session, it presented me with the exact name for that character which the author used, making it very likely I could have accidentally infringed copyright had I used both the unique concept for that character and the possible name it gave me. Then, as a test, I started a new conversation in my Claude AI account and asked it to brainstorm plot ideas for me that were roughly similar to my interests, and it actually started to steal from plots of mine I had discussed with it in previous conversations, Frankensteining them together in laughably obvious ways. It was then that I really saw that if the AI had been trained on a publicly available novel of mine, it could very easy present the unique expression of it to another writer to essentially steal from. The new writer might legally get away with it, but it would be considered unethical plagiarism if people noticed it, and seeing as he wouldn't really know where the ideas came from, he would be oblivious to it. People do not have to be consciously infringing copyright to be guilty of it. Under normal conditions, in copyright suits, one has to prove the infringer has access to the pre-existing work, but if the writer is using AI then access is automatic, because the AI is trained on almost everything. So, the AI can easily borrow too much of the core of another work - enough to infringe on the unique expression of another artist. I think we are going to see a ton of lawsuits in coming years and it will be a minefield. AI has so many great uses, but one has to be soooooooooo careful they don't accidentally infringe. The only way to do that really is to create the core of the story and characters yourself, and also ingest a ton of your own style into the prose, just to be safe - only really taking the de minimus much of the time. Copyright is a very misunderstood topic - most people really don't know how it works and what is infringing and what is not. Since we live in a word in which Luc Besson was found guilty of infringing John Carpenter's 1981 from Escape from New York with his film 2012 film Lockout, you can see how infringement can definitely be done at the macro level, and AI could very easily cause that to happen. I think your Dracula project is safe, because Dracula is public domain and you came up with much of the plot on your own, so it was a good test run, but getting the AI to invent more from scratch is quite dangerous, I think.
You raise a very good point. IMHO, I think it will be vital due authors to do multiple revisions and development to ensure there is no copy right infringement.
As I’ve been using AI, I’ve noticed that it pulls a lot out of stereotypes and commonly used tropes, names, and backstories. So I think the key here is if you are relying on AI to give you an original idea, you have to remember what it’s being trained on… if you want it to be original you can’t rely on what it’s been trained on, that will likely make it easy for you to fall into very common material that’s either been over done or over used. And to be honest, without AI we already get a lot of the same stories without AI. So how can we expect AI to stay away from that? The best way to use AI is to amplify YOU. Your thoughts, your experiences, your ideas, and make them your own. Because there’s only one you out there right? Just be true to yourself and if you see AI falling into common stories, etc that are already out there, steer it away! Because if you don’t, your work will be generic and just like everyone else’s. When I have brainstorming sessions and AI tries to steer my plotting on a specific path I tell it no, I want you to go this way… and honestly it makes my work more unique because I am intentionally going against the status quo.
Shout out to Ms Penn lmao!!
Interesting, but I'm wondering if mermaids do really get old 🤔
DAYLIGHT VIEWS OF THE TOWER
Free user-The image of the Eiffel Tower by day falls within the public domain: its use is rights-free, and may therefore be reproduced without prior authorisation by the SETE, the managing company of the image of the Eiffel Tower on behalf of the Mairie de Paris.
THE TOWER ILLUMINATED
Controlled use-The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected.
The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc.
Look, your ideas don't matter; your esthetics do. You don't speak to the soul with ideas. You speak to the soul with esthetics. Can sophisticated algorithm do that?
Probably.
@TheNerdyNovelist we should put it in charge of political rhetoric then
Ai is will not take over we human will find a way to use it.
That's how it was for thousands of years
AI Image generators can indeed combine visual ideas in interesting and novel ways- which is a kind of creativity- but true creativity requries intent and the desire to communicate, which AI's do not have. So AI Art is a kind of trick in which the machine combines patterns from it's training data into new configurations that appear to be the outcome of deliberate intent but are in fact statistically determined, expressions of the weighted reponse of the machine to the prompts input by the user.
People create art or write novels in order to convey meaning, to tell stories, and this intentionality is what we respond to when we engage with human creative works. AI's lack any understanding of the meaning in the patterns they generate, they really are just probability engines that combine abstracted tokens from their training data in superfically novel ways.
So while the outputs of AI's can at first sight resemble the human creations upon which they were trained these outputs in the end are unsatisfying and oddly repetitive- when you've seen one gallary of AI Art you've seen them all- they share a common lack of geninely engaging images, once you get past the glossy technique and hypersaturated colors.
We all know deep down that no LLM will ever write a 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Dune' because these great works of imagination arose from- and are expressions of- their authors total life experience- a complex blend of the intellectual, emotional, historical and existential experience of those particular human beings that led their own unique lives, lives that were shaped by war and technological change, social movements and economic ebbs and flows that they in turn responded to in ways that were shaped by their own individual mental and physical attributes, these being the outcome of genetic dispostions that were themselves the product of millions of years of evolutionary change and development.
The notion that a glorified calculator allocating weights via a statisical pattern matcher could ever even begin to match the creative capability of a Tolkien or Herbert is to me nonsensical- the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, we ourselves barely understand it, and anyone who claims to have recreated that complexity by assembling a vast data set from which to derive patterns is either deceiving themselves or everyone else-or both.
I disagree with the path you are pointing out. It is the path of human enslavement by AI, precisely the path we need to avoid. It doesn't matter how "lazy" the human is; if today he can work with something (whatever it may be) and pay their bills with it, and if with AI he will lose his job, then it is wrong. Besides, it is very difficult to judge what "working little" means. And AIs will continue to evolve. What is considered "working enough" today will be "working little" tomorrow, the more AI evolves. This cat-and-mouse game of machine against man is inhumane. Personally, I can only think of one fair option to uphold the principle of "the machine serving man" rather than "man serving the machine," which is universal basic income. And from there, people would do what they enjoy, instead of having to "work harder and harder."
All technologies cause similar disruption. Once the dust settles the job market will be at similar levels. Perhaps even better than it was before. The only difference is that the types of jobs will be different. And many will probably be greatly improved, as AI can remove the more mundane tasks that people don’t enjoy doing anyway.
U have always the same shirt
Yep. I have multiple copies of the same shirt. Like Steve Jobs.
AI wont replace anything because it has no emotion. AI content is already making people crave authentic content.
A human can give it emotion. People already rank AI-written poetry higher than human poetry. And they can’t tell the difference.
@@TheNerdyNovelist they can 100% tell the difference and AI bros don't count. Keep coping tho.
@@TheNerdyNovelist It has to be edited. It sucks on its own. Emotion can not be duplicated by math. People are not ranking poetry written and chosen by AI as good.
Authors of ALL people have had the weakest anti ai arguments given the fact that its almost become industry standard advice to "take ideas and add your own twist". "Stealing" is outright recommended in most cases and most of the fiction market is flooded with retellings. Authors should be the last ones shaming ai and the first ones embracing it
There is nothing new under the Sun, everything has been done before in some other variation.
❤️🍓☺️
"AI is just a tool" is shortsighted. If you have seen Claude with computer use you have seen the one of the first steps toward agentic workflows. Right now generative AI is just prompt and response, but in the coming months we will see greater and greater expansion into multi-step automation. Soon AI won't need a human in the loop. It will be able to operate fully independently and do everything better, faster, cheaper, and safer than humans can. The value of all human labor is going to zero.
So here’s the question. Imagine that we’ve always lived that way, with AI doing all of the necessary work. How would we live then? Because I guarantee you humans will still have a drive to do something. It won’t be like Wall-E.
BS. People will still be in the loop to edit and manage it. This version of AI is not sentient. It's just machine learning.
@@TheNerdyNovelist Humans can do whatever they want, it just won't be economically impactful because our level of productivity will become increasingly insignificant over time. The only viable path for continuing human relevance I can see is posthumanism integrating AI into thought and memory essentially merging with it. It sounds like science fiction, but Neuralink is real.
@@strangedays871 That statement is fallaciously reductionist. If AI is just machine learning humans are just biological machines.