Reminds me of an old joke, written as a letter to a typewriter manufacturer:
I once read that it took Robert Frost over 2 years to write his poem “the road not taken”, well, with my trusty <brand> typewriter and a bit of practice, I was able to write it in just under 2 minutes!
And the readers breasted boobily away from that.
not AI but I can make a giant pile of shit every day, not even Stephen King can keep up if I publish evey one of my turds
“Book”
Oh good. Just what we need. More churn. /s
I’ve never found that authors who prioritize speed at the cost of everything else are worth reading
Might have the bodice ripper genre solved.
No those are just porn
Exactly. If there are books that are simply churned out as fast as possible, it’s those.
Look up The Diamond Club by Patricia Hawkins-Bradley to see what I mean.
When I was very young I had this dream that I would learn everything, read everything. Shortly after I discovered that was absurdly impossible, even if you just limited yourself to non-fiction.
So I have no idea who would read an AI book, when there is just so much good stuff out there. It’s not like there is a dearth of literature.
I have only so much time on this earth and I am already selective about what I read.
Hear me out, we can get ai to read all the ai books, and then rate them, and have competitions. They can have annual shows that ai can watch, to receive ai awards.
If we can lock them all in, ai robots and their human assistants, then imagine a nice human read, or a nice walk in tue woods.
Not a fan of Stephen King, I take it?
AI will be the only one reading them
So why would I bother with her slop instead of going straight to the slop machine?
That’s under the extremely labored assumption that I’d bother with slop at all.
Reminds me of the computers in 1984 that cranked out pornography from mixing a handful of plots.
Cool, she can use her AI to read them too, cause no one else wants to.
I can churn out 45 in 1 minute if we set the bar low enough
So… I write stories. Mostly it’s for therapeutic purposes, or getting sprawling fantasies out of my head.
But I have severe attention issues. I’ll get stuck on the wording of one line for hours, get flustered, and then have executive dysfunction kill the whole day.
Hence, I use pretrain LLMs to help me write, but not “bang out this chapter for me ChatGPT,” like you think. I keep a smaller completion model (one not yet finetuned to “chat;” all it can do is continue blocks of text) loaded locally, with an interface for showing the logprobs of each word like a thesaurus. It’s great! It can continue little blocks of text, and smash though days of agony. It’s given me plot directions or character dialogue I would have never thought of on my own.
It doesn’t let me write quickly though. Certainly not like that.
Hence, I really, really hate grifters like this.
This woman is just a con artist, a spammer, openly boasting about it because apparently society has decided information hygiene doesn’t matter anymore. She’s abusing a dumb tool to flood a space with crap for her benefit.
And it gives these tools a bad name. They’re the lighting rod, shielding the enablers.
People rightly hate “AI” because assholes like this get praised abusing it. Now I feel shame using them, and paranoia someone will find out and make a snap judgement if I talk about it.
Habitual sloperator’s anonymous. Seems like you have a reasonable application of an LLM, applied only when conditionally valuable. Alternatively you could ask a person to help and cut out the sloperation entirely. Wash those hands etc.
I use pretrains light on slop, n-gram sampling, and a big banned strings list. And then I check the logprob synonyms on top of that, like so:
Not that it’s particularly critical, as I’m actually reading and massaging really short outputs (usually less than ten words at a time). Better instruct models, which tend to be more sloppy, still aren’t so bad; nothing like ChatGPT.
So yeah, I’m aware of the hazard. But it’s not as bad as you’d think.
In fact, there are whole local-LLM communities dedicated to the science of slop. And mitigating it. It’s just not something you see in corporate UIs because they don’t care (other than a few bits they’ve stolen, like MinP sampling).
It seems a sophisticated approach that minimizes broad suggestion. It probably improves your writing momentum and reduces stalling like youve shared had been detrimental. As an exercise in writing, or practice for personal reflection i see the merit. Teaching oneself or developing strategies best learned when applied… Alright. Functional writing on technical topics or news, potentially bearable.
But like many comments in the thread, people dont want to read generated content. If there’s disclosure about using an LLM in a novel’s production i’ll have little desire to read it.
I’m sure it’s barely readable garbage.
200 novels with 50,000 sales. An average of 250 sales per novel. So each novel is a failure but she fails at such a staggering pace that it looks like success.
Yeah but goddammit that more then my novel makes that took 6 months to write and extra 4 to edit. But think she making more on her “teaching” others how to create this shit.
Quick! I need a Samsung refrigerator operations manual in the tone of Bilbo baggings but nsfw. Don’t ask why! My life depends on it!
