Ryan Peter

@RobertWeb56439 @effectfully He actually explains man's condition perfectly. What happened in the garden? We wanted to be a law unto ourselves. And thus, the condition is aptly described. Of course there's a way out, but that's not what this text is about.

That text is just pure nonsense - beginning to end. It contains no facts, just a series of unwarranted assertions with no connection to the human condition or the reality we see around us. the true nature of man is quite different. The greatest text in human history is this. love God with all your heart, mind and spirit and your neighbour as youself. A world in harmony with this is a world we all wish to inhabit.

The greatest page of text in human history was written by a 22-year-old.

*gasp* no, can't be, it's the future, Timbaland said so!

@tunatweets @MichaelFKane Agree - and I also think it's not sustainable. Slop / cheap is always easy money in the beginning, and then the market adjusts. See what's even happened with processed food. The problem is it takes time, and then we feel we missed the train! It's hard to have to change the dream!

@RyanPeterWrites @MichaelFKane True. Really the issue is with the publishers. The slop is easy money, so they sell more and more of it. It becomes impossible to compete and be seen over the noise.

Great article from Kristen, but utterly bleak lol.

@MichaelFKane We're both musicians - and we've seen it there too, haven't we? The same deal, and now the same issues. Only a few have ever really become household names. But sometimes I think it's a blessing to miss the public pressure of all that and just quietly get on with it :).

@RyanPeterWrites Mostly it probably was. Story telling has always been a bad career choice when it comes to finances... There have always been a few to make it but that number has never been huge. In fact it's probably at the highest it's ever been. 🤔

@tunatweets @MichaelFKane I think there have always been a lot of readers who were happy with slop. I also think that a lot of them ain't seen the slop that's about to come their way :). They might change!

@RyanPeterWrites @MichaelFKane I hope you’re right. There are a lot of readers out there that I see loudly announcing that they don’t care if it’s AI slop, as long as they enjoy it, and their benchmark for “enjoyment” is in the gutter.

@MichaelFKane Totally understand what you mean. It's been hard to let go of the dream of what I envisioned the writing life would look like when I was dreaming about it as a kid. Sometimes I wonder if that was all a myth to begin with.

@RyanPeterWrites There is. But it IS less mainstream. It means I have no hope of becoming Stephen King. But I don't need that. I just need to find my niche audience. Quite possible online.

This is huge and welcome news in the world of AI music. Two of the biggest music distributors are banning music from Suno and other AI music companies they call "pirate studios". They will allow AI music that comes from products that license training data, but not from products that don't. (These distributors are what you use to get your music on Spotify etc.) Believe's CEO said he doesn't understand why other distributors aren't doing the same. "Anyone distributing copyright-infringing content is liable for copyright infringement [action]." Some will want them to ban all AI music, and I understand that. But their ban of what they call "pirate studios" sends a clear & important message: AI companies must license the training data they use. musicbusinessworldwide.com/believe-and-tu…

@NewYorker The upside is it's going to make it easier to get rid of Chromebooks in schools. The tech could have worked, but the tech companies have not made it work.

Jessica Winter has been raising her children to detest A.I. Then her daughter’s public middle school began receiving Google Chromebooks, which came pre-installed with an all-ages version of Gemini, a suite of A.I. tools. newyorkermag.visitlink.me/M5gaYm

The European Parliament's campaign against AI. So good.

@Riven_Holt @TriciaDearborn Well, you're welcome to do it however you feel is right for you. I'd probably doubt it's actually "your own voice" as everyone I've seen use it ends up sounding the same. We'll continue to disagree, and no need to waste more time doing so. All the best, nevertheless!

@RyanPeterWrites @TriciaDearborn Yes. In fact, he inspired me to write fiction about it. I describe the beats and impact I want and AI suggests the language I need to see the point. I cherrypick, make adjustments, and rewrite in my own voice. Yes; I read it similarly to hazing: "I suffered, so should you."

If you're thinking about using gen-AI to "write" books, this 🧵 is for you. I’m a highly experienced editor who’s been in the biz a long time. Recently I’ve had manuscripts come to me where the author has used gen-AI – not for writing, I’ve been assured, but for

@Riven_Holt @TriciaDearborn Have you ever seen the CEO who is actually pretty useless and can't even do anything without his secretary? And if A.I. gives you more work, what's the point? You don't get to develop yourself, and you also have to work more? Is this really Old Guard or is it just Common Sense?

@RyanPeterWrites @TriciaDearborn Yes. However, I overfocus on process over emotion and my works are largely emotionless and melodrama free. Disagree with your Old Guard argument. Computers didn't make secretaries lazy; I argue it gave them more work. I see AI having a similar quality.

@Riven_Holt @TriciaDearborn It's of course up to you, but after 20 years of writing experience I should point out that I don't see how this tool improves anyone's writing, but it rather creates dependency. Further, you're not the only writer in history to be autistic. Many such writers were incredibly good.

@RyanPeterWrites @TriciaDearborn I'm a technical writer, not a fiction writer and I'm autistic (which I don't lean on, but it's relevant). My emotional registers suck and it's good to have an outlet I can harvest realtime emotional feedback to work out melodrama, which I despise, but readers love.

@WKCosmo As a ghostwriter and editor who works closely with authors in developing their manuscript, everything she says there is absolutely spot on.

This thread is a great example of how an arrogant copy editor can easily do more harm than good.

@Riven_Holt @TriciaDearborn Might as well spend all that time and effort teaching yourself to write, though - and therefore improving yourself with a skill you don't a need a computer to do for you.

@TriciaDearborn Disagree. The problems you're finding with your AI-assisted authors is through their lack of proper prompt engineering and operating without consistent, hard architectures; or even not programming their own prose voices.

@atmoio As an editor, and ghostwriter, one of the difficulties I find in untangling it is in the AI's ability to say the same thing in a hundred different ways very smartly. It is highly repetitive, but in such a smart way that it can take ages to pick it out and untangle it.

This is utterly fascinating. We’ve known code written by AI is harder to untangle. It appears this is the case with writing as well. Tricia is an editor and she says that when an author submits work that is written by AI, she has a much harder time editing it. It’s all one interconnected black-box piece of writing that is not amenable to change. Whereas she finds that human writing, while seemingly messier, is actually much more structurally straightforward. My theory as to why this is is that LLMs think one token at a time. And after every token, they essentially look back and ask, “have I said the thing the prompt wants me to say?” If not, it keeps elucidating. The result is tight chain of thought writing that requires each preceding token to make sense of the next. Whereas human writing starts from a pre-language idea in the author’s head, and looks forward many sentences and paragraphs ahead to approximate the author’s intent. It’s somewhat fuzzy. But I think LLMs fundamentally “think” in a much different way than humans. They are certainly not useless. But I think it’s a grave mistake to equate them with human intelligence.

@mattyda_12 @JoshuaLisec As another ghostwriter, I can say that every client that has turned to the tech has now come back and asked me to fix it. A lot of what it produces is really smoke and mirrors. This is not an anti AI post.

@JoshuaLisec You’re gonna be the last ghostwriter, unfortunately. The combo of AI sounding more human and humans being more robotic is a tough one to overcome. We consume content so indiscriminately these days that the gap between the two is narrowing. This is not a pro-AI post.

Founder asks me why he shouldn’t just have AI write his book for him instead of a human ghostwriter. What would you tell him? I’ll drop my reply below if you give me a good alternative to what I SHOULD have said…

@JoshuaLisec Great answer.

Here’s what I said to the guy who said he should use AI rather than hire a book ghostwriter.

@DennyBurk @challies I know this comment will come across bitter, but lots of guys have actually been sounding the alarm - no idea why it's taken so long for the evangelical influencers to realize we have a problem. And a lot of church leaders are making the problem worse with how they use the tech.

Infuriating, frustrating, and a whole bunch of other words. Thanks for sounding the alarm on this, Tim. @challies challies.com/articles/ai-is…

@TrevinWax @challies Of course, they're just a moneygrab, like all of this AI stuff.

.@challies blows the whistle on AI systematic theologies: "They are created to overwhelm the system with books that are low-effort, low-cost, and low-quality, so they can fool buyers and slurp market share away from books that are far superior." challies.com/articles/ai-is…