There’s nothing wrong with using ai, it’s just a tool like a pen or a keyboard

It’s the wrong tool for dialogue though, it’s good for automating annoying repetitive tasks but not writing engaging dialogue.

>putting in the time & effort of telling an LLM all about your story and what you want instead of just writing the story
Totally fucked mentality on display here.

>>25116847
You don't get how it works
First of all it's not always easy to keep every character in character all the time. The AI theoretically helps this.
But more importantly stories are often directed by the characters. The way the characters behave determines what happens in the story. Theoretically if the AI never breaks character and always acts exactly as the character should act then the story should ironically become more natural and realistic.
In a sense when you have dialogue in real life the other person you're talking to is not all that different from an LLM that you're just feeding prompts into. Not from your perspective anyway. The only difference from your point of view is that you subconsciously approach one differently than the other. Either way you're just feeding language into a black box expecting an output.

>>25116866
Again, totally fucked mentality. Human beings are not black boxes composed of statistics.

>>25116873
As far as any individual is concerned they are though.
The contents of another human mind is as unknowable to you as anything in the universe.
And despite it all human behavior is still quite predictable.
A human mind in all practical and functional sense is a black box of statistics.

File: IMG_9284.jpg (991.5 KB)

991.5 KB JPG

>>25116879
solipsist cumt

>>25116951
embarrassing image

>>25116953
Embarrassing thread. OP should never attempt to write anything. OP should stick to sucking cocks

>>25116839
Here’s a real reason — not a purist or gatekeeping one.

Because dialogue is not just what a character would say. It’s what the story needs them to say.

When you talk to an AI “in character,” the exchange optimizes for being responsive, coherent, and interesting to you in the moment.

Good dialogue often needs the opposite:
withhold information
mislead
talk past the other character
say the wrong thing
end a scene early
create imbalance where one character wins and the other loses

AI is good at conversation.
Dialogue is controlled collision.

If you lift AI conversations directly, scenes tend to resolve too cleanly. Characters sound too self-aware. Emotional beats arrive too fast. Subtext gets spoken instead of implied.

Readers don’t feel tension when characters cooperate conversationally. They feel tension when characters fail to connect.

When you write dialogue yourself, you decide what isn’t said, where power shifts, when silence matters more than words, and how the line lands relative to the rest of the scene.

An AI exchange doesn’t know where the chapter is going, what needs to stay ambiguous for 40 more pages, or which line should feel wrong in hindsight.

You can use AI for dialogue. Plenty of writers already do.

But if you copy-paste the exchange, you’re outsourcing pacing, restraint, and narrative intent. You’re letting the tool decide meaning, not just phrasing.

The smarter way is to use AI to explore how a character thinks, generate raw material, test voice, or find unexpected turns — then rewrite it yourself so it serves the story, not the conversation.

That’s the difference between using a tool and letting it write for you.

>>25116866
People are not "in character" all the time either.

>>25117145
Way to prove his point retard

>>25117123
>reddit spacing
>bulleted list
>em dashes
>"it's not just x, it's y"
Yeah I'm thinking this is AI

>>25116839
Why are people so eager to cede control to these fucking programs? Especially for creative pursuits. What's the point of writing something if you're off-loading the work to an LLM?

>>25117167
>the use of em dashes proves it COULD be AI.
Its so over isn't it?

>>25117170
If you avoid writing with "AI tone" you can probably still get away with it

>>25116839
Because I won't read it. Nor will anyone else, because the market is flooded with eight trillion AI-generated novels per second, so... knock yourself out? Shit for the shit pile.

>>25116839
First of all, if you didn't put effort into writing it, I won't put effort into reading it.
Secondly, and most importantly, using AI impairs your cognitive function because you're training your brain to outsource creative thinking to something else, leading to atrophy in the creative parts of your brain which creates a negative feedback loop of increasing retardation. You use AI -> You become dumber and less creative -> Your artistic output decreases in quality -> You use AI more to compensate -> You become even dumber -> etc. etc.

File: IMG_5351.jpg (34.9 KB)

34.9 KB JPG

>>25117167
>Yeah I'm thinking this is AI
Yep, that's the joke...

File: IMG_9315.jpg (453.6 KB)

453.6 KB JPG

>>25116953
k

>>25116839
just be sure to heavily edit whatever it is saying
AI is not magic, and it the bubble willl pop when people realize that AI has reached it's maximum potential

File: DC1B27E3-D5BA-4FAC-8136-6FE9C9C256A6.jpg (25.3 KB)

25.3 KB JPG

>>25116839
>Why shouldnt I cheat?

>>25116839
Because you'll never learn to write dialogue that way
>I'm cooking this meal but give me one good reason I shouldn't buy a microwave meal?
Because you're cooking genius. If you're fine with slop, have at it, but you won't be cooking.

>>25116845
>There’s nothing wrong with using ai
I don't disagree, but this
>it’s just a tool like a pen or a keyboard
Isn't true. Pens and keyboards don't have the ability to generate text for you.

>>25116847
>>25116873
>>25116951
>>25116971
Seething and name-calling are not arguments. People are black boxes, and, in a some ways, their word choices are guided by statistics. Like an LLM, we have processed massive datasets of text and the words we choose are informed by the words we've processed.

>>25117982
>solipsist
is a critique and partly an indication i wish not to engage with you

>>25116839
I don't really consider using AI extensively to be an achievement. Wouldn't you rather try to break your brain and develop your creativity? You might even learn something about yourself.

>>25116839
go ahead.
i don't have to read it though.

>>25117167
Do you really think the value of writing is in the labor of the writer? Does the product of writing not have value? Cognitive offloading is already the norm. Writing itself is cognitive offloading. Human editors offload cognition, so do text prediction, spellcheckers, tools like grammarly, even word processors and pencils in a way. You don't have any problem with offloading cognition, you have a problem with offloading it to a specific class of tools.

>>25117982
True. Not all tools are equal. Some are the bare minimum for a medium to exist and have skills attached to them. But what skill does AI have? Not much, unfortunately. All it really has is convenience.

>>25118015
> text prediction,
> spellcheckers,
>tools like grammarly,
> even word processors
> and pencils
tfw dont use a single one of tjese LMAO

>>25118015
NTA, but it isn't necessarily about the product or the labor. Yes, art as understood today is mostly about the work/product itself, but there is something else that could have value in itself, such as skill. Why write a book if you gain absolutely nothing from it aside from a few bucks? Wouldn't you want to come back from the task as more competent and skillful as a writer?

>>25117202
>>25117211
The market was flooded before AI because of online self-publishing to the point that no one was going to read a random work anyway. You think you have the ability to detect AI writing but you don't, all you can detect are the patterns you recognize and "vibes".
>You use AI -> You become dumber and less creative -> Your artistic output decreases in quality -> You use AI more to compensate -> You become even dumber
Do you have empirical proof of this?

>>25117842
A microwave is not to cooking what AI is to writing because a microwave cannot generate ingredients to cook with.

>>25118004
"sucking cocks" is you seething. I'm not the person you were interacting with, and you're free to leave the thread at any time if you can't handle it.

>>25116839
all your characters will sound the same and everyone will be able to tell

>>25116839
Because you can write better than AI. You just don't know it yet because you haven't tried.

>>25118010
I wouldn't consider it an "achievement" exactly, either, but you're assuming that AI cannot be used to develop creativity, and I don't think that's true. I think you can learn grow and learn things about yourself by using AI.

>>25118041
He said a microwave meal. As in convenient prefab meal. Also, yeah, a microwave does involve more skill with cooking than an LLM does with writing.

>>25118041
positively malding post

>>25118047
>but you're assuming that AI cannot be used to develop creativity
I don't think an AI can be creative in any sense of the word and the creativity that goes with using them is very minimal
>I think you can learn grow and learn things about yourself by using AI.
Ok, how? Because all I see when using it is text appearing in front of me based on very generic inputs that require minimal skill to create a pretty poem. But it is convenient.

>>25118015
>text prediction
Why would a writer use this? Isn't the art of writing, the product as you call it, about selecting words to evoke an emotion? If you're not doing that, then I'm not really sure you can call what you do writing, any more than someone who makes collages could call themselves a painter

>>25118033
>Do you have empirical proof of this?
There are studies about doctors using AI diagnostic tools that reach that conclusion. If you don't use it you lose it

>>25118016
The concept of "skills" doesn't apply to AI, you're anthropomorphizing. That's understandable given their conversational output, and sometimes it's just simply convenient, but I try to avoid it all the same. Pens don't have skills either, the skill has always belonged to the user of the tool. I would argue that directing an AI is a skill, and I would also argue that it's convenience to writing is a largely a choice. It can also be incredibly inconvenient.

>>25118074
NTA but I'm not sure if I believe this. When I think of doctor diagnostic tools, I think of AI exoert systems, which are not neural networks like LLMs

>>25118076
Listen, I am being very polite here, but your understanding of my post is abyssmal. I never said that AIs or fucking pens are skilled. I said that tools have relevant skills ATTACHED to them. Meaning, they are a medium through which the user can develop skills specifically related to those tools. Take a pen for example. With a pen you can, with practice, develop skills such as drawing or writing. But AI does not seem to cultivate many skills in the user. There may be some skills it could help develop, like conversation, but writing? I don't think so.

>>25118032
I disagree with the characterization of writing as an art, and I think you do too. The most important skill of a writer isn't necessarily circumvented by the use of AI, editorial skill. And again, I think there is some skill involved in directing an AI. I disagree that there's nothing else to be gained from writing an AI-assisted book but money or that you can't become a better writer by using AI.

>>25118076
>I would argue that directing an AI is a skill
This would be true if the output was at all predictable. But you can give it the same input over and over and get a different result.