41–50 of 93 posts
[flagged]
Compounded upon this is that artists were ripped off to train AI, which is now being used to destroy artists' livelihoods.
Cool, I also use AI as a tool.
>Olga Tokarczuk has responded to the controversy over her reputed use of AI. https://lithub.com/olga-tokarczuk-has-responded-to-the-contr... Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Tokarczuk sent a statement to Lit Hub via her publisher, Riverhead, denying she used AI in her writing for anything other than research. Read it here: >After Nobel Prize-winner Olga Tokarczuk’s recent remarks implying she had used AI to write her re…
Read her books. You will understand she doesn't need AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, you doubt her? Say more. Why do you doubt her? Because of her long history of using AI to generate her previous work? Which of those did you like least?
[flagged]
Read her books. You will understand she doesn't need AI.
[flagged]
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
No comment on whether the book seems AI-generated or not, but: It is quite insidious how AI is trained on real-world writers, who then get accused of being a copy, not the original. It makes me think the future of language, at least in realms where authenticity matters, is going to be constantly changing slang, experimental structures, etc. – all things that boilerplate LLMs will never give you.
That's not what's happening here though, people didn't read her book (that's not out yet) and think it was written by AI because of the style, they think it's written by AI because of statements she made about using AI.
I was making a more general comment about the way AI works and how writers are increasingly getting accused of having “AI-style” writing.