When I use AI to write novels, I segment the problem, and have an ai which creates a matrix of prompts which do the detail writing iteratively. Generally, it works flawlessly, and I make the process very easy to rewrite sections which don’t “work” upon an edit read.
Sometime consider how a sculptor, photographer (other than reportage), pa…
When I use AI to write novels, I segment the problem, and have an ai which creates a matrix of prompts which do the detail writing iteratively. Generally, it works flawlessly, and I make the process very easy to rewrite sections which don’t “work” upon an edit read.
Sometime consider how a sculptor, photographer (other than reportage), painter or illustrator approaches making a work. There is an idea, a rough sketch or composition level rendering, then successive levels of adjustment to the finished work.
It’s the same with most human works, a projection and successive refinement which adds more and more information.
The most successful composition controlled ai will start with a layout, then use that with stylistic controls to render successive approximations to a finished image.
Sometime watch a documentary or read the process of filming, which has extensive storyboarding for scene realization long before it goes to actual filming.
I suspect you will see using an AI to naturalistically describe a scene composition (objects described and positioned in 3D space with 2D rendering) like “sphere diameter x lower left quadrant, rabbit figure… and 3D language objects will be positioned until accepted (Maya) then final rendering will create the surprising style or photorealistic detail.
The way I would do it is to ask for blender configuration to create a scene with a “rabbit with 4 ears”, render the line object space, then transform the locked position 2D rendering into the Dall-E Style space. There are very good tools to stabilize characters and do supepositional content rendering.
It allows extremely fine-grained positioning of every object, then you can sequentially do the final 2D render in the AI projective space.
In all my work with AI, they cannot handle physics well either linguistically or visually, a severe embodiment problem. We tend to function linguistically within our embodied physics which shapes our own synaptic logic, which makes nonsensical detection trivial.
Relational embodied physics is not linguistically solvable I’m afraid in the current generation. There is insufficient training in obvious object physics in the generative layers so they cannot tell that something statistically linguistically or visually is not statistically possible physically.
For instance, if were to have characters eat a horse non-metaphorically, a text generator would happily describe impossible things happening in the story. When it happens lightly (In the Lord of the Rings, what sustained that large group for a year, Lembas? Elvin leaves?) you’re not aware of it. When it condenses in a story accidentally, the AI merrily makes obviously physically impossible things happen.
I struggled for hours trying to get illustrations of Hercules, a Titan, Satyrs and people - human figures at different scales and limbs - to be automatically generated illustrating a series of books I did extending the Satyr plays of Euripides - the only surviving complete work was “Cyclops”. In it satyrs take the place of the female chorus in other plays, which mean you have bawdy drunk self-serving characters fucking up the other heroes.
The books were fine but Hercules rescuing Prometheus from the Eagle while satyrs fucked up the rescue bring auto-illustrated was not easy - I used Open-AI to write the novel, and I had it talk to a different commercial AI for illustration, but the juxtaposition of a large Titan, a muscular Hercules, his crew of ordinary men, and the eagles in a fight was very time-consuming to describe and segment.
I’ve generated almost 40,000 novels (and series) of varying complexity to understand where AI is weak or strong in fiction composition, how much human intercession is required for shaping, and what genres have sufficient training that it can work with them easily. I’ve been creating them since gpt-2, and ultimately have been experimenting with structure since rolled my own tools back in ‘93
I have a distributor who wants all I can generate in a particular genre; they’ll be on the market within 3 months, I just haven’t decided how clear to make to the reader that they’re AI. I have a few dozen writing styles with appropriate pen names so it appears like a consistent stable of authors with unique styles and interests.
That’s the problem when you have an engineer study English literature perhaps. They try to engineer it to be… more intensely focused at what is interesting.
Like I said, they have peculiar physics deficits which I have to have some human as copy readers look for. I can’t intercept it by an AI editor yet.
It’s quite funny when it happens, and usually can be avoided in level 2, 3, or 4 of the composition process but not always.
Hopefully the law stops you at some point because that is just so disrespectful to everyone who ever took the time to write and the world doesn't need AI slop. I really don't understand your mindset.
You haven’t read as much utter crap as I have, as well as stacks of wondeful writing.
You should try Barbara Cartland (if she is the author) of 700 or more “romance novel” novel fame, you know Star-crossed lovers (or is that Shakespeare), impossible odds, steamy sex, breakup and hot makeup. Or perhaps Louis L’Amour (if the author) of the male equivalent “Western Novels” - 100+ which morphed into Science Fiction (actually Engineering Fiction) - you know, stern stranger with tragic past, fighting insurmountable odds (bad winter, lawlessness, corruption), perhaps a strong independent woman for contrast, and ultimate success in a changing world. Study the Aarne-Thompson-Uther encoding system for all children’s story and world folktales sometime. I had even gpt-2 happily making the calf jump in the stew-pot for the hungry family… Hercules is a trainer at gym now in SF, Dostoevsky cranks out deep anti-hero stories of corporate warfare, Jane Austen lives in Louisiana in an extremely structured and stultifying antebellum south, and Alice, little Alice, is a futurist diving through a multiverse of echoing film characters down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass.
My next, is an epic universe combining the utterly familiar with sentient black holes, 78 magical creatures out to save existence from oblivion (every marvel and DC comic for the last 60 years), only a new twist, a bit more of entropy, a smattering of entanglement, cellular automata, with love, sex, strong women and moral men, lives created by wish and intuition.
It’s not the writing, it’s the idea, which AI can only remix, permute or mutate. It’s terrible at generating genius which is what becomes cliche. But playing with ideas, at a book an hour, that’s magic. It’s the ultimate word processor, spell check, rewriting tool, editor and critic simultaneously.
It will be out - the first few thousand I did were hardcore porn, which I was going to release with a special stable of writers - Mitch McConnell, John Thune, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst or Shelly Moore Capito, or more funnily Mike Johnson, Steve Scalise, Tom Emmer Lisa McClain, but those jokes tend to backfire. But who knows there are a lot of hot
Potential authors out there. I can see Matt Gaetz writing “Half Virgin” or “Hard Candy Christmas”
Funny you can’t really copyright a name.
Literary Fiction - Nabokov writes beautiful books on Lepidopterists obsessed with nymphs at museums, Burroughs does have a view on chemosexualtiy (15 chapters worth), and William Gibson lives for strange couplings at sex clubs in Japan.
So you're doing it out of nihilistic spite? Porn by Mitch McConnel is funny but if you are going for anarchy there are more constructive ways to exercise that instinct than to pollute the publishing world.
When I use AI to write novels, I segment the problem, and have an ai which creates a matrix of prompts which do the detail writing iteratively. Generally, it works flawlessly, and I make the process very easy to rewrite sections which don’t “work” upon an edit read.
Sometime consider how a sculptor, photographer (other than reportage), painter or illustrator approaches making a work. There is an idea, a rough sketch or composition level rendering, then successive levels of adjustment to the finished work.
It’s the same with most human works, a projection and successive refinement which adds more and more information.
The most successful composition controlled ai will start with a layout, then use that with stylistic controls to render successive approximations to a finished image.
Sometime watch a documentary or read the process of filming, which has extensive storyboarding for scene realization long before it goes to actual filming.
I suspect you will see using an AI to naturalistically describe a scene composition (objects described and positioned in 3D space with 2D rendering) like “sphere diameter x lower left quadrant, rabbit figure… and 3D language objects will be positioned until accepted (Maya) then final rendering will create the surprising style or photorealistic detail.
The way I would do it is to ask for blender configuration to create a scene with a “rabbit with 4 ears”, render the line object space, then transform the locked position 2D rendering into the Dall-E Style space. There are very good tools to stabilize characters and do supepositional content rendering.
It allows extremely fine-grained positioning of every object, then you can sequentially do the final 2D render in the AI projective space.
In all my work with AI, they cannot handle physics well either linguistically or visually, a severe embodiment problem. We tend to function linguistically within our embodied physics which shapes our own synaptic logic, which makes nonsensical detection trivial.
Relational embodied physics is not linguistically solvable I’m afraid in the current generation. There is insufficient training in obvious object physics in the generative layers so they cannot tell that something statistically linguistically or visually is not statistically possible physically.
For instance, if were to have characters eat a horse non-metaphorically, a text generator would happily describe impossible things happening in the story. When it happens lightly (In the Lord of the Rings, what sustained that large group for a year, Lembas? Elvin leaves?) you’re not aware of it. When it condenses in a story accidentally, the AI merrily makes obviously physically impossible things happen.
I struggled for hours trying to get illustrations of Hercules, a Titan, Satyrs and people - human figures at different scales and limbs - to be automatically generated illustrating a series of books I did extending the Satyr plays of Euripides - the only surviving complete work was “Cyclops”. In it satyrs take the place of the female chorus in other plays, which mean you have bawdy drunk self-serving characters fucking up the other heroes.
The books were fine but Hercules rescuing Prometheus from the Eagle while satyrs fucked up the rescue bring auto-illustrated was not easy - I used Open-AI to write the novel, and I had it talk to a different commercial AI for illustration, but the juxtaposition of a large Titan, a muscular Hercules, his crew of ordinary men, and the eagles in a fight was very time-consuming to describe and segment.
AI-generated novels are a thing that do not need to exist.
I’m afraid it’s a bit late.
I’ve generated almost 40,000 novels (and series) of varying complexity to understand where AI is weak or strong in fiction composition, how much human intercession is required for shaping, and what genres have sufficient training that it can work with them easily. I’ve been creating them since gpt-2, and ultimately have been experimenting with structure since rolled my own tools back in ‘93
I have a distributor who wants all I can generate in a particular genre; they’ll be on the market within 3 months, I just haven’t decided how clear to make to the reader that they’re AI. I have a few dozen writing styles with appropriate pen names so it appears like a consistent stable of authors with unique styles and interests.
That’s the problem when you have an engineer study English literature perhaps. They try to engineer it to be… more intensely focused at what is interesting.
Like I said, they have peculiar physics deficits which I have to have some human as copy readers look for. I can’t intercept it by an AI editor yet.
It’s quite funny when it happens, and usually can be avoided in level 2, 3, or 4 of the composition process but not always.
Hopefully the law stops you at some point because that is just so disrespectful to everyone who ever took the time to write and the world doesn't need AI slop. I really don't understand your mindset.
You haven’t read as much utter crap as I have, as well as stacks of wondeful writing.
You should try Barbara Cartland (if she is the author) of 700 or more “romance novel” novel fame, you know Star-crossed lovers (or is that Shakespeare), impossible odds, steamy sex, breakup and hot makeup. Or perhaps Louis L’Amour (if the author) of the male equivalent “Western Novels” - 100+ which morphed into Science Fiction (actually Engineering Fiction) - you know, stern stranger with tragic past, fighting insurmountable odds (bad winter, lawlessness, corruption), perhaps a strong independent woman for contrast, and ultimate success in a changing world. Study the Aarne-Thompson-Uther encoding system for all children’s story and world folktales sometime. I had even gpt-2 happily making the calf jump in the stew-pot for the hungry family… Hercules is a trainer at gym now in SF, Dostoevsky cranks out deep anti-hero stories of corporate warfare, Jane Austen lives in Louisiana in an extremely structured and stultifying antebellum south, and Alice, little Alice, is a futurist diving through a multiverse of echoing film characters down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass.
My next, is an epic universe combining the utterly familiar with sentient black holes, 78 magical creatures out to save existence from oblivion (every marvel and DC comic for the last 60 years), only a new twist, a bit more of entropy, a smattering of entanglement, cellular automata, with love, sex, strong women and moral men, lives created by wish and intuition.
It’s not the writing, it’s the idea, which AI can only remix, permute or mutate. It’s terrible at generating genius which is what becomes cliche. But playing with ideas, at a book an hour, that’s magic. It’s the ultimate word processor, spell check, rewriting tool, editor and critic simultaneously.
It will be out - the first few thousand I did were hardcore porn, which I was going to release with a special stable of writers - Mitch McConnell, John Thune, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst or Shelly Moore Capito, or more funnily Mike Johnson, Steve Scalise, Tom Emmer Lisa McClain, but those jokes tend to backfire. But who knows there are a lot of hot
Potential authors out there. I can see Matt Gaetz writing “Half Virgin” or “Hard Candy Christmas”
Funny you can’t really copyright a name.
Literary Fiction - Nabokov writes beautiful books on Lepidopterists obsessed with nymphs at museums, Burroughs does have a view on chemosexualtiy (15 chapters worth), and William Gibson lives for strange couplings at sex clubs in Japan.
All good fun.
So you're doing it out of nihilistic spite? Porn by Mitch McConnel is funny but if you are going for anarchy there are more constructive ways to exercise that instinct than to pollute the publishing world.