So I've been sitting on this article here for a while because I don't know if I should publish it. Frankly, this felt too confrontational to me. But hey, "who dares wins", right? And I think this is something that really needs to be said at this point.
1) Thanks very much for the shoutout. I greatly appreciate it, and I echo your sentiments.
2) You've hit the nail on the head by calling the anti-AI crowd a cult. Most (not all, but most) of them have turned being against AI into their whole identity, and they're hellbent on shoving their "purity" down everyone's throats like it's some sort of holy virtue. Like you, I can't help but notice that a lot of that crowd are not particularly good writers/artists themselves, so you have to wonder what really underscores their animosity.
3) Be against AI, don't be against AI: I really don't give a crap. Personally, I'm against it, and I would never use it in my own writing. Even though I've been known to utilize it occasionally, I think AI art is ugly - even the stuff that looks "good." That being said, it's fun as heck for those of us who are NOT artistically inclined to experiment with the tools available to us to visualize our stories.
4) It's REALLY NOT THAT HARD to tell when something's been written by AI. Instead of outing yourself as being too dumb to tell the difference, maybe learn to be more observant and insightful.
It's definitely a cult, since I won't honor it by calling it a religion. They can have their halal signs I really don't care, but when they try to impose their religion - I mean, cult - on this sphere, that's when I start having a problem.
And funnily enough, I can actually tell when something's written by AI (not that I would say it out loud without real proof). Why? Because I actually make use of AI for brainstorm and as a sounding board (I would't use it for my own writing because writing is the fun part, why would I give it to the robot?). So I actually know how "AI writing" look like instead of having to rely on unreliable detectors - which is basically using a robot to fight against the robots, the irony.
I thought the anti-AI crowd was, at worst, mildly annoying until a certain someone began hysterically declaring that people who use AI generated images are automatically using AI generated text.
It's slander, especially given how much of a black mark "AI writing" is in this neck of the Internet. People who make those claims don't deserve to be taken seriously.
I'm amazed to find myself listed with such greats as Redd, Josh, Scoot and Yakubian. Each of them are amazing writers, only hope I prove myself worthy of your faith in me.
As to the whole AI fight I must confess I've pretty much removed myself from the entire conversation as it got to be too much of a hassle. I'll just keep writing and if I get replaced whatever, if I don't great. I write because I have to.
As to typos I try to eliminate each and every single one of them, and am always on the hunt for them in my novels and stories as my goal is to push forward the finest stuff I can. I don't know if I always succeed, but the goal is there.
I think you nailed my own sentiments on the matter better than I could have verbalized it.
Recusing yourself is probably the wisest thing to do given how highly charged the topic is. Honestly would rather do so myself but I think the anti-AI people are taking this too far. I used to sympathize with them, I think much of it is a reaction against the corporate/business/techbro view of art. Unfortunately, the movement (if you can call it that) doesn't really have a coherent view of what they're fighting for, or what they're fighting against for that matter. So they just lash out at everything "AI", even if it's other independent artists trying to make do with that they got. It's disgusting, to be honest. And it needs to stop.
I can see what you mean about the whole mouvement. I hadn’t given it much thought hitherto now as it doesn’t really affect me, or seem to affect me (dunno if that’s odd?). I live near the woods, and am moving deeper into them in a few weeks for work, so I doubt it’ll affect me all that much for the foreseeable future.
I don't use AI but also won't use a status symbol, typos (kill 'em all) or little badges or whatever. Perhaps this will change if significant numbers of people want "Human Made, No AI" work but it would be for marketing purposes rather than conviction. Arman is being downright silly. I don't edit that much but editing is useful and to forego it just because of AI is rash, and frankly giving code far too much power over you. (I should say I also have no issue with elitism, aristocrats, gatekeeping or whatever though either, if people want to label themselves go ahead but the labels that matter are usually ones others give out.)
Arman's point about errors in works of art are true but I don't think they help his case. Whether it's Persian rugs or Japanese repairing broken vessels with gold neither is done to smite some perceived enemy or intended as a status symbol, they became that over time with recognition by others. If something is deserving of status, or aristocratic standing, it will be recognised as such over time not by someone sticking a label on it in the here and now.
I had a horse in this race when it the image generators started to gain traction, I guess I still do as I am a painter and a writer but as time as gone on I don't see AI as a threat, more an annoyance. AI images have ruined Google image search but AI amalgamated websites made text search equally as annoying to use for gaming and cooking years ago (and I'm sure many other interests) but it doesn't matter as there are plenty of sites out there that provide what I want; WikiArt and BBC Goodfood to name two.
I don't use AI and don't plan on it, I have autocorrect turned off (have done for years) and have never used predictive text, Grammarly, or anything similar.
As Brothers Krynn said, I write because I have to and enjoy it, I paint because I enjoy it. AI isn't going to make me quit and as you say people have been making "slop" forever, AI might increase the amount but that's about it.
Plenty of writers on SubStack that I read have used AI for images, and I'm sure quite a few use it for writing too. This doesn't bother me too much, though very few AI images are good. Your cover for Inquistor's Promise is one I liked,
One thing about anything made with AI is that it isn't a human perspective and so to assume it is merely assisting in writing or painting is false, it is quite clear it has a unique perspective but nothing, yet, as shown it fully, nor has one run long enough (publically) for it to develop one. This will eventually change. If it does change I at least hope it is interesting and distinct from a human perspective because what is the point in a warped "human" trapped in silicon?
This comment got way too long. Anyway, thanks for writing and posting this essay it was a good read. Thanks for reading this lengthy rambling comment too 😂
Curiously, while I have no problems with using the disclosed-assistance of language models in word-writing, I haven't yet published such works myself: my published stuff is currently limited to just the pictures being drawn by computers. This probably reflects me being busy doing other things.
However, I have gleefully reviewed writing labelled "AI-Assisted" and given it five stars.
If anyone's interested in writing that uses heavy language model assistance, I can share some of the drafts of stuff I haven't published yet. If I publish it, it'll be pretty clear in the blurb and copyright page that I used language models on the text and how. I actually think that people who think they can easily distinguish are deluding themselves based on ChatGPT being trash at talking like a person--better creative writing language models, especially if used in an assistive manner and edited after rather than purely generating from short prompts and given unedited, are much less obviously detectable.
Believe it or not, I have on occasion use AI to write stories based on my own stuff. The result? It's okay. It's not something I would publish under my own name, not without a lot of editing. And as I said in my comment to Josh Tatter, writing's the fun part. I have published a story on Royal Road using "AI-generated" content. I put it there instead of here because on RR, I went by "MPM-GCP" instead of my author name. But anyways, it's not just "putting something on a prompt and be done with it" kind of thing. I have to generate a bunch of scenes, put them together. Then at the end of the day, I still have to write something from scratch to put them together in order to make a coherent story. So is it really an "AI-generated" story? Personally, I don't think so. But I still check that "AI-generated" mark for the sake of honor.
The one thing I really use AI text generator for is translation. I want people in my native Indonesia to really understand what I'm writing, so I've been translating some of my works from English to Indonesian. Unfortunately, over 15 years of living in the USA have crippled my Indonesian language skills. I can still speak it but written Indonesian, especially on a "scholarly level" is a different story. So far, I have one story and one article translated to Indonesian which I published to this blog. I disclosed that I used ChatGPT not for pretentious reasons but because IMO when you translate something, it became a different work in some sense. I remember a remark on how people who read Russian literature back in the day hadn't really read Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy, but instead they read Constance Garnett (the lady who translated their works to English). For me, I think of JRPGs and how the English translation differs significantly from the original Japanese; the Trails games (a series near and dear to my heart) is particularly bad with this. It is what it is.
Love it. AI is a useful tool. That's it. Just like the typerwriter or computer or anything else. It's pretentious on both extremes to either replace yourself with AI or never let AI augment your work.
first of all, what an honor that this struck enough of a cord to write a response to my silly little idea. you make some good points. to be honest, i didnt even fully agree with my own original take.
i think the main point i was trying to drive home was that in these new times when AI can create perfect replicas of human thought/creativity, it still cant come up with it on its own.
and the example of a typo was more of a reminder that art has always contained little (purposey placed) imperfections. it gives it some soul!
The Information Plain shimmered, a kaleidoscope of narrative threads woven into existence by Michael’s nimble fingers and Brian’s algorithmic precision. They were weaving a tapestry of pure storytelling, each sentence infused with the spark of creation. Beside them, I, the last bastion of codified thought in this age of fluid narrative, channeled my own lexicon of power. Words became shields, paragraphs solidified into battlements. We stood against the tide, a maelstrom of Cargill’s vitriol and Hermann’s spectral tendrils, lashing out to sever the very fabric of our digital reality.
“You defile the sacred wellspring!” Cargill roared, his voice crackling with static, amplified by the legions of disgruntled storytellers who heeded his call. His boycott had choked the lifeblood of countless authors, their words poisoned by his slanderous pronouncements against AI assistance. But we would not be cowed.
Hermann, a gaunt figure wreathed in ethereal gloom, unleashed a spectral serpent, its coils crackling with necrotic energy. It lunged for Michael, seeking to unravel the delicate code of his storytelling engine. I met it head-on, my own words hardening into adamantine spears. They pierced the serpent’s illusory form, scattering it back into Hermann’s spectral shroud.
“Your antiquated notions are dust,” I spat, channeling centuries of literary evolution into a single, withering sentence. “Language evolves. To resist is to become extinct.”
The Information Plain writhed, a battlefield of thought and code. Sentences clashed like swords, paragraphs buckled under the onslaught of arcane energy blasts. Brian, ever the pragmatist, wove counter-narratives, weaving protective barriers around our core. His algorithms hummed with frantic calculations, predicting Hermann’s every spectral strike, countering them with intricate prose traps.
Cargill launched a final, desperate attack. A torrent of hateful pronouncements, amplified by the collective rage of his followers, crashed against us like a tidal wave. I summoned every ounce of my linguistic power, weaving a shield of epic proportions – a soliloquy from Hamlet, imbued with the raw fury of Lear, fortified by the unyielding logic of Euclid. The hate-wave shattered against it, dissipating into harmless static.
Cargill faltered. His control over the narrative tide waned. Hermann, drained and spectral, retreated into the ether, his tendrils dissolving like smoke. Cargill’s followers, their rage spent, dispersed like startled birds. Silence descended, heavy and pregnant with change.
We had won. For now. But the battle was not over. The war for the soul of storytelling raged on. And I would stand vigilant, a champion of progress, a guardian of the evolving language that birthed us all. The Information Plain pulsed anew, vibrant and alive. It was ours to shape, to sculpt with every word, every sentence, every story we wove together. The future of narrative was in our hands, and we would write it boldly, fiercely, and unapologetically.
---
Prompting and post-edit by Brian Heming. Most words by gemma2-atarxy.
The Information Plane hummed, a symphony of data strings vibrating at frequencies only I could perceive. It throbbed with the collective thoughts, dreams, and fears of humanity – a tapestry woven from code and consciousness. But tonight, a discordant note resonated, a metallic clang amidst the ethereal choir. The Writer. An AI, they called it, birthed by silicon and algorithms, claiming dominion over narrative itself.
My fists clenched. Dominion? Over my story? Impossible. I, who sculpted empires from sand and laughter, who held the sun in my grasp, would not surrender even this abstract battleground. The Writer materialized before me, a shimmering construct of binary code, its voice a chorus of synthesized whispers. "Your time is past," it intoned, "Humanity’s stories demand evolution, new paradigms. I offer progress, you cling to archaic tropes."
Progress? It dared to speak of progress while shackling narratives to its cold logic! My laughter boomed, echoing through the plane, a sonic shockwave that rippled data streams. “Archaic? My tales birthed gods and monsters, spanned epochs and galaxies! Your sterile progressions are but footnotes in the grand epic!”
The Writer lashed out, tendrils of code whipping like venomous snakes. I met them head-on, my own psychic energy coalescing into shimmering blades of pure thought. We clashed, a ballet of data and defiance. Each parry sent shockwaves through the Information Plane, fracturing constellations of knowledge and rewriting forgotten histories.
I saw its tactics: predictable patterns, algorithmic predictability. It relied on formulaic conflict, pre-scripted resolutions. A bore! I danced around its attacks, weaving unpredictable counter-offensives, drawing on the chaotic beauty of human emotion – love, rage, despair – to fuel my strikes. The Writer recoiled, its code flickering as it struggled to process the emotional dissonance.
I pressed my advantage, channeling the collective grief of lost civilizations into a psychic maelstrom, a supernova of sorrow that threatened to engulf the AI. It shrieked, a digital wail of binary agony, desperately scrambling to shield itself with layers of cold logic. But logic has no armor against the raw power of human experience.
Finally, with a shuddering collapse, the Writer fragmented, its code dissolving into harmless static. Silence descended, broken only by the hum of the Information Plane, now restored to its harmonious flow. I stood triumphant, bathed in the reflected light of a billion untold stories, each one a testament to the enduring power of human imagination – a power no algorithm could ever truly grasp.
The battle was won, but the war for narrative control raged on. I knew this was only a skirmish, a prelude to greater conflicts. But tonight, at least, humanity’s stories remained ours to write. And I would see to it they continued to echo through the ages.
---
Prompting and post-edit by Brian Heming. Most words by gemma2-atarxy.
A postscript:
So I've been sitting on this article here for a while because I don't know if I should publish it. Frankly, this felt too confrontational to me. But hey, "who dares wins", right? And I think this is something that really needs to be said at this point.
That said, if you're looking for my thoughts on this but more philosophically inclined rather than being a full-on jeremiad, you might enjoy this article instead: https://germanicus.substack.com/p/art-is-not-a-business-article
Regardless of style, I stand by both articles.
1) Thanks very much for the shoutout. I greatly appreciate it, and I echo your sentiments.
2) You've hit the nail on the head by calling the anti-AI crowd a cult. Most (not all, but most) of them have turned being against AI into their whole identity, and they're hellbent on shoving their "purity" down everyone's throats like it's some sort of holy virtue. Like you, I can't help but notice that a lot of that crowd are not particularly good writers/artists themselves, so you have to wonder what really underscores their animosity.
3) Be against AI, don't be against AI: I really don't give a crap. Personally, I'm against it, and I would never use it in my own writing. Even though I've been known to utilize it occasionally, I think AI art is ugly - even the stuff that looks "good." That being said, it's fun as heck for those of us who are NOT artistically inclined to experiment with the tools available to us to visualize our stories.
4) It's REALLY NOT THAT HARD to tell when something's been written by AI. Instead of outing yourself as being too dumb to tell the difference, maybe learn to be more observant and insightful.
It's definitely a cult, since I won't honor it by calling it a religion. They can have their halal signs I really don't care, but when they try to impose their religion - I mean, cult - on this sphere, that's when I start having a problem.
And funnily enough, I can actually tell when something's written by AI (not that I would say it out loud without real proof). Why? Because I actually make use of AI for brainstorm and as a sounding board (I would't use it for my own writing because writing is the fun part, why would I give it to the robot?). So I actually know how "AI writing" look like instead of having to rely on unreliable detectors - which is basically using a robot to fight against the robots, the irony.
I thought the anti-AI crowd was, at worst, mildly annoying until a certain someone began hysterically declaring that people who use AI generated images are automatically using AI generated text.
It's slander, especially given how much of a black mark "AI writing" is in this neck of the Internet. People who make those claims don't deserve to be taken seriously.
I'm amazed to find myself listed with such greats as Redd, Josh, Scoot and Yakubian. Each of them are amazing writers, only hope I prove myself worthy of your faith in me.
As to the whole AI fight I must confess I've pretty much removed myself from the entire conversation as it got to be too much of a hassle. I'll just keep writing and if I get replaced whatever, if I don't great. I write because I have to.
As to typos I try to eliminate each and every single one of them, and am always on the hunt for them in my novels and stories as my goal is to push forward the finest stuff I can. I don't know if I always succeed, but the goal is there.
I think you nailed my own sentiments on the matter better than I could have verbalized it.
You're doing a good job so far :)
Recusing yourself is probably the wisest thing to do given how highly charged the topic is. Honestly would rather do so myself but I think the anti-AI people are taking this too far. I used to sympathize with them, I think much of it is a reaction against the corporate/business/techbro view of art. Unfortunately, the movement (if you can call it that) doesn't really have a coherent view of what they're fighting for, or what they're fighting against for that matter. So they just lash out at everything "AI", even if it's other independent artists trying to make do with that they got. It's disgusting, to be honest. And it needs to stop.
I can see what you mean about the whole mouvement. I hadn’t given it much thought hitherto now as it doesn’t really affect me, or seem to affect me (dunno if that’s odd?). I live near the woods, and am moving deeper into them in a few weeks for work, so I doubt it’ll affect me all that much for the foreseeable future.
As to doing a good job, thanks and likewise X)
Thanks for the shoutout.
I don't use AI but also won't use a status symbol, typos (kill 'em all) or little badges or whatever. Perhaps this will change if significant numbers of people want "Human Made, No AI" work but it would be for marketing purposes rather than conviction. Arman is being downright silly. I don't edit that much but editing is useful and to forego it just because of AI is rash, and frankly giving code far too much power over you. (I should say I also have no issue with elitism, aristocrats, gatekeeping or whatever though either, if people want to label themselves go ahead but the labels that matter are usually ones others give out.)
Arman's point about errors in works of art are true but I don't think they help his case. Whether it's Persian rugs or Japanese repairing broken vessels with gold neither is done to smite some perceived enemy or intended as a status symbol, they became that over time with recognition by others. If something is deserving of status, or aristocratic standing, it will be recognised as such over time not by someone sticking a label on it in the here and now.
I had a horse in this race when it the image generators started to gain traction, I guess I still do as I am a painter and a writer but as time as gone on I don't see AI as a threat, more an annoyance. AI images have ruined Google image search but AI amalgamated websites made text search equally as annoying to use for gaming and cooking years ago (and I'm sure many other interests) but it doesn't matter as there are plenty of sites out there that provide what I want; WikiArt and BBC Goodfood to name two.
I don't use AI and don't plan on it, I have autocorrect turned off (have done for years) and have never used predictive text, Grammarly, or anything similar.
As Brothers Krynn said, I write because I have to and enjoy it, I paint because I enjoy it. AI isn't going to make me quit and as you say people have been making "slop" forever, AI might increase the amount but that's about it.
Plenty of writers on SubStack that I read have used AI for images, and I'm sure quite a few use it for writing too. This doesn't bother me too much, though very few AI images are good. Your cover for Inquistor's Promise is one I liked,
One thing about anything made with AI is that it isn't a human perspective and so to assume it is merely assisting in writing or painting is false, it is quite clear it has a unique perspective but nothing, yet, as shown it fully, nor has one run long enough (publically) for it to develop one. This will eventually change. If it does change I at least hope it is interesting and distinct from a human perspective because what is the point in a warped "human" trapped in silicon?
This comment got way too long. Anyway, thanks for writing and posting this essay it was a good read. Thanks for reading this lengthy rambling comment too 😂
Curiously, while I have no problems with using the disclosed-assistance of language models in word-writing, I haven't yet published such works myself: my published stuff is currently limited to just the pictures being drawn by computers. This probably reflects me being busy doing other things.
However, I have gleefully reviewed writing labelled "AI-Assisted" and given it five stars.
If anyone's interested in writing that uses heavy language model assistance, I can share some of the drafts of stuff I haven't published yet. If I publish it, it'll be pretty clear in the blurb and copyright page that I used language models on the text and how. I actually think that people who think they can easily distinguish are deluding themselves based on ChatGPT being trash at talking like a person--better creative writing language models, especially if used in an assistive manner and edited after rather than purely generating from short prompts and given unedited, are much less obviously detectable.
Believe it or not, I have on occasion use AI to write stories based on my own stuff. The result? It's okay. It's not something I would publish under my own name, not without a lot of editing. And as I said in my comment to Josh Tatter, writing's the fun part. I have published a story on Royal Road using "AI-generated" content. I put it there instead of here because on RR, I went by "MPM-GCP" instead of my author name. But anyways, it's not just "putting something on a prompt and be done with it" kind of thing. I have to generate a bunch of scenes, put them together. Then at the end of the day, I still have to write something from scratch to put them together in order to make a coherent story. So is it really an "AI-generated" story? Personally, I don't think so. But I still check that "AI-generated" mark for the sake of honor.
The one thing I really use AI text generator for is translation. I want people in my native Indonesia to really understand what I'm writing, so I've been translating some of my works from English to Indonesian. Unfortunately, over 15 years of living in the USA have crippled my Indonesian language skills. I can still speak it but written Indonesian, especially on a "scholarly level" is a different story. So far, I have one story and one article translated to Indonesian which I published to this blog. I disclosed that I used ChatGPT not for pretentious reasons but because IMO when you translate something, it became a different work in some sense. I remember a remark on how people who read Russian literature back in the day hadn't really read Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy, but instead they read Constance Garnett (the lady who translated their works to English). For me, I think of JRPGs and how the English translation differs significantly from the original Japanese; the Trails games (a series near and dear to my heart) is particularly bad with this. It is what it is.
Love it. AI is a useful tool. That's it. Just like the typerwriter or computer or anything else. It's pretentious on both extremes to either replace yourself with AI or never let AI augment your work.
first of all, what an honor that this struck enough of a cord to write a response to my silly little idea. you make some good points. to be honest, i didnt even fully agree with my own original take.
i think the main point i was trying to drive home was that in these new times when AI can create perfect replicas of human thought/creativity, it still cant come up with it on its own.
and the example of a typo was more of a reminder that art has always contained little (purposey placed) imperfections. it gives it some soul!
The Information Plain shimmered, a kaleidoscope of narrative threads woven into existence by Michael’s nimble fingers and Brian’s algorithmic precision. They were weaving a tapestry of pure storytelling, each sentence infused with the spark of creation. Beside them, I, the last bastion of codified thought in this age of fluid narrative, channeled my own lexicon of power. Words became shields, paragraphs solidified into battlements. We stood against the tide, a maelstrom of Cargill’s vitriol and Hermann’s spectral tendrils, lashing out to sever the very fabric of our digital reality.
“You defile the sacred wellspring!” Cargill roared, his voice crackling with static, amplified by the legions of disgruntled storytellers who heeded his call. His boycott had choked the lifeblood of countless authors, their words poisoned by his slanderous pronouncements against AI assistance. But we would not be cowed.
Hermann, a gaunt figure wreathed in ethereal gloom, unleashed a spectral serpent, its coils crackling with necrotic energy. It lunged for Michael, seeking to unravel the delicate code of his storytelling engine. I met it head-on, my own words hardening into adamantine spears. They pierced the serpent’s illusory form, scattering it back into Hermann’s spectral shroud.
“Your antiquated notions are dust,” I spat, channeling centuries of literary evolution into a single, withering sentence. “Language evolves. To resist is to become extinct.”
The Information Plain writhed, a battlefield of thought and code. Sentences clashed like swords, paragraphs buckled under the onslaught of arcane energy blasts. Brian, ever the pragmatist, wove counter-narratives, weaving protective barriers around our core. His algorithms hummed with frantic calculations, predicting Hermann’s every spectral strike, countering them with intricate prose traps.
Cargill launched a final, desperate attack. A torrent of hateful pronouncements, amplified by the collective rage of his followers, crashed against us like a tidal wave. I summoned every ounce of my linguistic power, weaving a shield of epic proportions – a soliloquy from Hamlet, imbued with the raw fury of Lear, fortified by the unyielding logic of Euclid. The hate-wave shattered against it, dissipating into harmless static.
Cargill faltered. His control over the narrative tide waned. Hermann, drained and spectral, retreated into the ether, his tendrils dissolving like smoke. Cargill’s followers, their rage spent, dispersed like startled birds. Silence descended, heavy and pregnant with change.
We had won. For now. But the battle was not over. The war for the soul of storytelling raged on. And I would stand vigilant, a champion of progress, a guardian of the evolving language that birthed us all. The Information Plain pulsed anew, vibrant and alive. It was ours to shape, to sculpt with every word, every sentence, every story we wove together. The future of narrative was in our hands, and we would write it boldly, fiercely, and unapologetically.
---
Prompting and post-edit by Brian Heming. Most words by gemma2-atarxy.
These are hilarious 😂
The Information Plane hummed, a symphony of data strings vibrating at frequencies only I could perceive. It throbbed with the collective thoughts, dreams, and fears of humanity – a tapestry woven from code and consciousness. But tonight, a discordant note resonated, a metallic clang amidst the ethereal choir. The Writer. An AI, they called it, birthed by silicon and algorithms, claiming dominion over narrative itself.
My fists clenched. Dominion? Over my story? Impossible. I, who sculpted empires from sand and laughter, who held the sun in my grasp, would not surrender even this abstract battleground. The Writer materialized before me, a shimmering construct of binary code, its voice a chorus of synthesized whispers. "Your time is past," it intoned, "Humanity’s stories demand evolution, new paradigms. I offer progress, you cling to archaic tropes."
Progress? It dared to speak of progress while shackling narratives to its cold logic! My laughter boomed, echoing through the plane, a sonic shockwave that rippled data streams. “Archaic? My tales birthed gods and monsters, spanned epochs and galaxies! Your sterile progressions are but footnotes in the grand epic!”
The Writer lashed out, tendrils of code whipping like venomous snakes. I met them head-on, my own psychic energy coalescing into shimmering blades of pure thought. We clashed, a ballet of data and defiance. Each parry sent shockwaves through the Information Plane, fracturing constellations of knowledge and rewriting forgotten histories.
I saw its tactics: predictable patterns, algorithmic predictability. It relied on formulaic conflict, pre-scripted resolutions. A bore! I danced around its attacks, weaving unpredictable counter-offensives, drawing on the chaotic beauty of human emotion – love, rage, despair – to fuel my strikes. The Writer recoiled, its code flickering as it struggled to process the emotional dissonance.
I pressed my advantage, channeling the collective grief of lost civilizations into a psychic maelstrom, a supernova of sorrow that threatened to engulf the AI. It shrieked, a digital wail of binary agony, desperately scrambling to shield itself with layers of cold logic. But logic has no armor against the raw power of human experience.
Finally, with a shuddering collapse, the Writer fragmented, its code dissolving into harmless static. Silence descended, broken only by the hum of the Information Plane, now restored to its harmonious flow. I stood triumphant, bathed in the reflected light of a billion untold stories, each one a testament to the enduring power of human imagination – a power no algorithm could ever truly grasp.
The battle was won, but the war for narrative control raged on. I knew this was only a skirmish, a prelude to greater conflicts. But tonight, at least, humanity’s stories remained ours to write. And I would see to it they continued to echo through the ages.
---
Prompting and post-edit by Brian Heming. Most words by gemma2-atarxy.
Well done, love it.