Never said they didn't.

Only pointing out that not all writers came from the love of reading books, but for something else, like film, and have an aptitude with words.

Doesn't 1 write to express themselves? Tell a story? Create something?

Remember some writers aren't writing books, essays or articles. Some are writing screenplays, or VG dialogue. Words not meant to be read, but heard.

The issue isn't that they banned AI. Someone shouldn't just type a prompt, copy/paste, and call it a day!

The issue is "You went to an AI for inspiration or help for ideas! Same as asking AI to write the damn thing for you!"

No. Or is writing Cyberpunk plagiarism against William Gibson?

What is thought, exactly?

You can't say a machine has never, nor ever will, think when we still don't know what consciousness is.

Is firing of a synapse really that special, or is it just human exceptionalism?

I once needed a 'sacred' place in an irl ocean as part of a plot point.

You think that several hour exercise is a chance to learn and grow?

The AI's statistically likely answer narrowed it down. Once I got a 'region' I then deep dived via Google and learned all about it to put it in the book.

Most readers do not care about Nebulas, Auroras, and the like. Many won't even know what those are.

Those who do, are art snobs that run these orgs, or trad publishers aka out of touch businessmen who only care about money.

Gloried Gatekeepers.

And if ficion, many don't even care its bullshit.

I love that you think people are just there, at your beck and call, at the snap of fingers.

All of what you said is either an engineering problem, or societal issues unrelated to the tech. econ-bubble? that's capitalism being shitty.

True, but we're closer than before. At least ChatGPT can pivot if you stop talking about yourself, unlike Elisa.

It's more computing than thinking, yes. It's still doing math behind the hood and spitting out tokens resembling words. It isn't critical and it uses past solutions to problems.

I never said it was the end all, be all.

It's machine learning, predictive models, trained on data fed to it by flawed humans. Sometimes too much. Other times too little. Much of the time garbage.

It doesn't need to be 100% to be useful.

So I get about the same ideas as the robot on stolen data?

I've done this, it isn't any better, and the ideas are just as dumb and contrived.

You don't really need research to write a good story. Look no further at some best sellers to see that.

When I was in school in 2010s there was talk of machines learning like humans. That's the general idea behind neural networks - its meant to mimic a human brain. Machine learning is training the logic and not hard coding it.

So I saw AI that could write poems (badly) coming a mile away.

I just say this. I have a background in Computer Science. AI is the logical evolution in machine learning.

So pardon my annoyance for being told that AI/LLVMs is categorically bad/evil, and your lesser for using it.

You know you can't own an idea, right? Some think creativity is nothing more than rehashing the same ideas over and over again.

It's what's done with the idea that's important, and what I do with that idea will differ from the original thinker of said idea.

Then you don't know many writers or they never admitted it.

The query was about moon/cat gods. At least what got spat out are gods of at least 1 of those.

I went with that knowing I wouldn't get a clean answer. Depending on why I want that those all over the place answers narrow down the research. It isn't replacing it.

The keyword there is "many." Nothing like being stuck in research hell while drafting a story. Time spent reading the many links is time I could have used to actually write!

So by that logic writers who use name generators aren't really writers?

It's still "I have no idea maybe I can fish for ideas."