Search options (Page 1 of 3)

One of the competitions I'm doing has an active message board system, where things get discussed.
One of the hottest (by which I mean most divisive) topics is about AI and the potential use in writing competitions.

I've noticed that there seem to be two common stances that one particular side of the debate makes:
1: AI/LLMs can never be as creative as a human, so the stories will never be as good.
2: Anyone who uses AI/LLMs should be DQ'd and banned for trying to have an unfair advantage.

(I usualy prefer the term LLMs, because it's more accurate. Sometimes I fall into using AI because everyone else does, but accuracy is important.)

If LLMs aren't creative—and let's be honest, they have nothing which really approaches an imagination, so they can't truly be creative—then there should be no threat to people who are creative.
If LLMs are a threat to people who are creative, then either you're admitting that LLMs can be more creative than people.
Both statements can be true.

Back in old days, before human chessmasters started losing to "thinking machines," I could beat a chess program set to a certain level of forethought or below. Once I set it above that point, I had trouble, until either I learned what I needed to beat it, or I didn't and got frustrated and gave up.

Some people couldn't adapt. Some people could. And some people surpassed.

I don't think that LLMs will ever be more creative than most humans.
But they'll be more efficient.
And therein lies the issue.

Take any of the images I use as a standin on here for a cover.
For someone human to create any one of those pictures, it would take time and effort and work.
And they would need to be fairly compensated for that or give it up of their own free will.
And I'd have to choose asking someone to give up their free time or me paying someone for something, when—at this point in time—they are already a sink of my resources. I spend money to try to develop my skills. I can't afford to pay anyone for that sort of effort—yet. So, rather than a silly-looking plain red cover, I took roughly 5 minutes to use an LLM-powered graphic design program to create it for myself.
Because if I did it sans the LLM stuff? It would look even worse.

Writing's the same. I've read "AI-created" stories that I know for a fact are, because I explicitly asked them to create them. They are inconsistent, lose track of stuff, and have more holes in logic than one would imagine.
But there's people who write even worse.
So for something that they need a real quick, and not very creative piece?
They'll use LLMs.

I'm not going to fret or worry about whether a computer can do something better than me.
I already know it can.  I can't draw. And I'm mediocre at chess.

It is what it is.

AI are tools. And they're as "ethical" as they're programmed to be.
I wrote a story recently that involved a serial killer making their victims look like suicides.
Trying to research that one was a pain in the rear, the constant "Are you ok?" messages.
Another one, I had to write an Alternate History, and chose to utilize real historical figures in alternative roles.
So I kept getting told "That's not what happened" and had one program evaluate my characters as they really were, not as how I wrote them.
I ended up having to include a line at the begining telling the darn thing that the story was Alternate History and that I was well aware that this wasn't what happened.
Even then, it still would judge the characters based a lot on RL not AH.

50-Word Story Competition

Website

Summary:
Monthly contest (1st to last of month)
Micro-fiction. 50 words, "no more, no less." Written to a specific theme.
Themes are announced in advance (she has through to the end of '27 listed) so…
Top three (1st, 2nd, 3rd) as judged by the person running the comp.
Prizes: In addition to publication, free professional critiques of a set number of words (which can be combined with other months' prizes; but there's 6-month expirations). 1500 words/1000 words/500 words.
Cost: Free

(Morgen Bailey is a pro judge/editor/ghostwriter/author/etc, so has some gravitas.)

Furious Fiction

Website

Summary:
Monthly contest sponsored by the Australian Writers' Centre
Flash Fiction (500 words max)
~55 hours (one weekend) from release of prompt to deadline.
Several winners/runners-up, lots of honorable mentions.
Cost: Free
Prizes: None other than publication or mention.
Past Winners

Writing Battle

Website

Summary:
Seasonal contests. Short story and flash fiction, varies by contest.
Four genres per contest, four grand prize winners per contest.
Some are peer judged (with pros for finals), some are pro judged.
Cost: Varies, roughly $20–$40, paid prior to submission.
Prizes: Varies, $10K—$20K, split between 32 people per contest.

Speaking of contests, did you see this week's Reedsy winner, JR?

(I'm going to message you in private, too.)

(1) That series title doesn't roll off the tongue. "Gathering Darkness," sure. "As Darkness Gathers," not so much. "I really love the 'As Darkness Gathers' series." vs "I really love the 'Gathering Darkness' series."

(2) The series name sounds more like a book title, and vice versa. "I really love the first book of 'The Emissary' series, As Darkness Gathers."

Just my opinion.

What are the other book titles?

I've only dabbled with Gemini, and not for anything serious; only when it's something quick and I don't want to take the time to pull up Grok. My experience with it has not been impressive.

I use Grok now, but sometimes that involves a lot of hand-holding and neck-wringing.

I used to use ChatGPT, but a pair of major snafus (see below) on its part convinced me to stop paying for it. I'll go back occasionally, if I want to doublecheck Grok, but not often.

I tried Claude out a bit, several months ago, and it worked about as well as the other two from my experience. If I drop Grok I might be tempted to try the new version out, but I haven't reached that point yet.

But I always make sure that if I'm relying on it for something, anymore, I ask it for links to the places where I can figure out the truth of the matter. Like Wikipedia, I never rely on them for primary research anymore, but for compiling where to do my research.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As y'all know, I've been working on a historical fiction story off and on for a year now. Set in the late 17th century, it involves ships and pirates and the Caribbean. Fun stuff.

So in addition to having the AI (GPT at the time) proofread my work for editing errors, I would also have it go through a list all the potential anachronisms and such. And it caught several, so it was a good thing. Sort of. Because it missed two major anachronisms.

First, despite movies telling us otherwise, ships didn't have wheels until the 18th century. Prior to that, a ship would have a thing called a whipstaff. Wheels use ropes to transfer the motion from the deck to the tiller. A whipstaff uses a wooden beam, so it had to be located on the rear of the main deck rather than on an upper poop, aft, or quarterdeck. And, under the main deck, there was a thick wooden beam hanging from above that would move as the ship was steered. So there was a room on the orlop or gun deck (the deck below the main, depending on the purpose of the ship) where the beam was, called the tiller room. Not necessary with a wheel, since ropes take up a small amount of space and can be extended up or out or whatever.  Of course, it doesn't mention this until I'm working on the second draft.

The other failure was, initially, my passengers were quartered below the main deck. Whereas passengers, especially ones of any note (such as the daughter of the owner of the ship) would be given the Captain's Quarters, and the Captain would bunk with one of his officers. That one didn't come up until the third draft, of course.

What annoys me most is how all of a sudden it decides to mention these things and then is all "I apologize for the oversight. I should have mentioned this before. It will not happen again. I promise." Until the next time you catch it, when it repeats the same exact apology.

Since I'm not in the room with you, just to make sure:

1. Edit the book.
2. Going to the "Cover" section.
3. "Choose File" you want from your end. (And the file type might matter? I use JPGs exclusively.)
4. Making sure the setting is title or no title, depending on how you want it.
5. "Upload Image and Create"

We're already serving one set of masters—cats.
What's another?
Though I suppose it's said that man cannot serve two masters (at least that's the justification I've been told for why bigamy is wrong), so I suppose we'll have to choose at some point.
So do we go with the unfeeling, uncaring bosses that would put us down without a thought?
Or do we go with the AI?

Except the image of the horse is what I see for her here, but not elsewhere on TNBW. So I don't think it has to do with her cache or browser, but something with that of the forums?