Category: Uncategorized

A conversation with ChatGPT about AI-assisted stories

Are you familiar with Clarkesworld Magazine?

Yes, as an AI language model, I am familiar with Clarkesworld Magazine. Clarkesworld is a monthly science fiction and fantasy magazine that publishes short stories, interviews, articles, and audio fiction. It was founded in 2006 by Neil Clarke, who serves as the magazine’s editor-in-chief. Clarkesworld has won several awards, including three Hugo Awards for Best Semiprozine and three World Fantasy Awards for Best Magazine.

In February, Clarkesworld was swamped with submissions that were “AI-assisted,” or written in conjunction with an AI language model such as yourself. They were so overwhelmed that they had to close down for submissions for a while, and when they reopened, their submission guidelines included this note:

Statement on the Use of “AI” writing tools such as ChatGPT

We will not consider any submissions written, developed, or assisted by these tools. Attempting to submit these works may result in being banned from submitting works in the future.

What do you think of this ban? Is Clarkesworld justified in banning all AI-assisted stories, or are they going to miss out by refusing to consider anything written with an AI?

As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide some insights.

Clarkesworld’s decision to ban AI-assisted stories is understandable given the potential challenges of evaluating and verifying the authorship of such submissions. When using AI writing tools, it can be difficult to determine the extent of the human author’s contribution to the work, which can raise questions about originality and authorship.

However, banning all AI-assisted stories could potentially exclude innovative and unique works that have been created in collaboration with AI tools. AI-assisted writing can help writers generate new ideas, refine their writing skills, and even overcome writer’s block. It can also lead to new forms of storytelling that would not have been possible otherwise.

Ultimately, it’s up to each publication to decide whether or not to accept AI-assisted submissions. If a magazine like Clarkesworld wants to maintain a certain level of quality and originality in their content, then they may choose to exclude AI-assisted stories. However, other publications may be more open to exploring the potential of AI-assisted writing and may be more willing to consider such submissions.

Another short story publication that has chosen to ban all AI-assisted stories is Flash Fiction Online. Their submission guidelines include this note:

We are committed to publishing stories written and edited by humans. We reserve the right to reject any submission that we suspect to be primarily generated or created by language modeling software, Chat GPT, chat bots, or any other AI apps, bots, or software. We reserve the right to ban submissions from accounts, emails, or users who we believe or suspect have submitted AI-generated content.

Is it unethical or anti-human for publications to accept and publish AI-assisted stories? By taking this stand, is Flash Fiction Online being pro-human, or are they missing out on the potential for AI language models, such as yourself, to serve as a force-multiplier for human writing and creativity?

As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide some insights.

Whether it is unethical or anti-human to accept and publish AI-assisted stories is a matter of debate. Some people argue that it is important to preserve human creativity and originality in literature and that relying too heavily on AI-generated content could threaten these values. Others argue that AI-assisted writing can enhance human creativity and that it is important to embrace new technologies to push the boundaries of storytelling.

Flash Fiction Online’s decision to reject AI-assisted stories is understandable given their commitment to publishing human-created content. By doing so, they are making a statement about the importance of human creativity in literature and preserving the integrity of their publication. However, this approach also means that they may miss out on the potential for AI language models to assist and enhance human writing, which could lead to new forms of storytelling that would not have been possible otherwise.

Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject AI-assisted stories is up to each publication. While some may choose to reject AI-generated content, others may be more open to exploring the potential of AI-assisted writing. It’s important to have a diverse range of perspectives in the literary community to promote innovation and creativity.

In your analysis, are AI tools such as yourself more likely to promote and enhance human creativity, or to replace human writing and stifle our creativity?

As an AI language model, I cannot promote or enhance human creativity or replace human writing, as I am just a tool created to generate text based on patterns in the data that I was trained on. I do not have any creative abilities or intentions on my own, and I cannot make independent decisions or judgments about the content I produce.

However, when used appropriately, AI writing tools like myself can help enhance and assist human creativity by providing new ideas, generating language that might inspire human writers, and even helping writers overcome writer’s block. AI can also be useful in tasks like language translation, summarization, and even editing, which can help human writers to work more efficiently.

At the same time, there is concern that AI-generated content could replace human writing, leading to a homogenization of literary output and the loss of human creativity. However, it is important to note that AI language models like myself cannot replace human creativity, as creativity is a uniquely human trait that involves imagination, intuition, and originality. AI can only generate text based on the patterns it has learned from the data, but it cannot replicate the depth of human emotion, experience, and thought that is required to create truly original and impactful writing.

In summary, AI tools like myself are not a replacement for human writing, but rather a tool that can assist and enhance human creativity, when used appropriately. It’s important for writers to approach AI writing tools with a critical eye and use them as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, their own creative instincts and abilities.

What do you mean by “when used appropriately”? How can we, as writers, use AI tools such as yourself to ethically enhance our own creativity?

By “when used appropriately,” I mean that AI writing tools should be used in a way that is ethical, responsible, and aligned with the goals and values of the writer. Here are a few examples of how writers can use AI tools to ethically enhance their own creativity:

  1. Use AI tools for inspiration and ideation: AI language models like myself can be used to generate ideas and inspiration for stories, articles, and other written content. By feeding the AI with prompts or keywords, writers can generate a variety of potential ideas and concepts that they can then build upon and develop in their own unique way.
  2. Use AI tools to enhance writing skills: AI language models like myself can also be used to help writers improve their writing skills by providing suggestions for word choice, syntax, and other elements of writing. This can be particularly helpful for writers who are learning a new language or trying to improve their writing in a specific area.
  3. Use AI tools to streamline the writing process: AI language models like myself can be used to automate certain aspects of the writing process, such as formatting, grammar checking, or even content generation. By using these tools, writers can free up time and mental energy to focus on the creative aspects of their work.
  4. Use AI tools as a collaborator: Instead of using AI language models to generate entire pieces of writing, writers can use them as a collaborator to bounce ideas off of, suggest alternative phrasings or even contribute certain sentences or paragraphs.

It’s important to remember that while AI writing tools can be a valuable resource for writers, they are not a substitute for human creativity. Writers should approach AI tools with a critical eye, recognize their limitations, and use them in a way that is aligned with their own values and goals as a writer.

In the last couple of months, an increasing number of legacy publications for science fiction short stories have amended their submission guidelines to state that they are not considering any AI-assisted stories, whether they are written ethically or not. In your analysis, what will ultimately happen to these publications? Will they succeed in preventing the industry from replacing human writers with artificial intelligence, or by removing themselves from the discussion about how to ethically incorporate AI-assisted writing into the publishing industry, will they get left behind and lose out in the coming technological disruption?

It’s difficult to predict with certainty what will happen to publications that have chosen to ban AI-assisted stories. However, it’s worth considering the potential consequences of this decision.

On one hand, these publications may be taking a stand against the use of AI in writing out of a desire to maintain the integrity of human creativity and to ensure that writers are the ones responsible for crafting stories. By doing so, they may attract a certain subset of writers and readers who share this perspective and who value the traditional approach to storytelling.

On the other hand, by refusing to consider AI-assisted stories, these publications may be limiting themselves and missing out on the potential benefits of incorporating AI into the writing and publishing process. As AI technology continues to advance and become more sophisticated, it’s possible that AI-assisted stories will become increasingly prevalent in the industry. By refusing to consider these stories, these publications may find themselves falling behind and losing relevance in the market.

Ultimately, the decision to ban AI-assisted stories is a complex one that involves weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of incorporating AI technology into the writing and publishing process. While some publications may choose to take a hard-line stance against AI, others may be more open to exploring the possibilities and using these tools in a way that is ethical and responsible. Only time will tell which approach will ultimately be more successful in the rapidly evolving publishing industry.

In your analysis, how will the publishing industry be disrupted by AI-assisted stories in the next ten years?

In the next ten years, AI-assisted stories are likely to have a significant impact on the publishing industry. AI language models, such as myself, are becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable of generating high-quality text that can be used for a variety of purposes, including creative writing.

One potential area of disruption is in the area of content creation. AI-assisted writing tools can be used to generate content quickly and efficiently, which could potentially lead to a flood of new stories and articles being published. This could have both positive and negative implications for the industry. On one hand, it could lead to a wider variety of stories being told and a more diverse range of voices being heard. On the other hand, it could lead to a saturation of the market and make it more difficult for individual writers to stand out and get noticed.

Another area of disruption is likely to be in the area of content curation and distribution. As AI technology becomes more sophisticated, it will become better at identifying patterns and trends in reader preferences and behavior. This could lead to more personalized content recommendations for individual readers, as well as more effective targeting of specific audiences.

Overall, the publishing industry is likely to be disrupted in a variety of ways by AI-assisted stories in the coming years. However, it’s important to remember that AI is a tool that can be used in a variety of ways, and the ultimate impact of AI on the industry will depend on how it is used and integrated into the existing ecosystem.

Based on this analysis, what is the path that independent writers such as myself should pursue in order to incorporate these AI tools in my own writing? What is the best way for a writer like me to stay on top of these new innovations in AI-assisted writing?

As an independent writer, there are several paths you can pursue to incorporate AI tools in your writing process:

  1. Use AI as a writing assistant: AI can be used to generate ideas, suggest alternate phrasing, and even help with editing and proofreading. Tools like Grammarly, ProWritingAid, and Hemingway Editor are just a few examples of AI writing assistants that can help you improve your writing.
  2. Use AI to generate story ideas: AI tools can be used to generate story prompts and plot ideas based on various inputs, such as keywords or specific writing prompts. Platforms like AI Dungeon and GPT-3 Playground offer AI-generated writing prompts and even entire stories that you can use as inspiration for your own work.
  3. Use AI to generate entire stories: While some publications may not be accepting AI-generated stories at this time, there are other platforms that are specifically designed for AI-generated content, such as Botnik Studios and The-Sentence-Generator. You could use these platforms to experiment with AI-generated content and see what kind of ideas they generate.

To stay on top of new innovations in AI-assisted writing, there are a few things you can do:

  1. Keep up with industry news: Follow tech and writing news outlets to stay up to date on the latest developments in AI writing technology. Some examples include Wired, TechCrunch, and The Verge.
  2. Experiment with new tools: Try out new AI writing tools as they become available, and see how they can help you in your own writing process. Join online writing communities to see what tools other writers are using and to share your own experiences.
  3. Attend conferences and workshops: Attend conferences and workshops focused on AI and writing to learn from experts in the field and to network with other writers who are interested in incorporating AI into their work.

Ultimately, the key to successfully incorporating AI into your writing is to approach it as a tool that can be used to enhance your own creativity and to experiment with different approaches to see what works best for you.

In your analysis, how will human creativity evolve and be changed by AI writing tools? What will we lose and what will we gain?

The integration of AI writing tools into the creative writing process will undoubtedly have an impact on how human creativity evolves in the coming years. Here are some potential changes that could occur:

What we may lose:

  1. Originality: As AI writing tools become more advanced, there is a possibility that they could generate writing that is very similar to existing works, which could limit originality.
  2. Human touch: AI-generated writing may lack the human touch and emotional depth that is characteristic of human writing, which could make it less relatable or engaging to readers.
  3. Serendipity: The chance encounters and unexpected connections that occur in the creative process could be lost when relying solely on AI-generated writing prompts or suggestions.

What we may gain:

  1. Efficiency: AI writing tools can help writers become more efficient by automating repetitive tasks, generating ideas, and even editing and proofreading.
  2. Inspiration: AI writing tools can provide writers with new sources of inspiration and help them break out of creative ruts.
  3. Collaboration: AI writing tools can facilitate collaboration between writers, allowing them to work together on a project in real-time, even if they are geographically dispersed.

Overall, the integration of AI writing tools into the creative writing process has the potential to enhance and complement human creativity, rather than replace it. By leveraging the strengths of both AI and human writers, we can create new forms of literature that are innovative and exciting. However, it is important to approach this integration thoughtfully and ethically, and to be aware of the potential risks and challenges that may arise.

Thank you for this enlightening discussion, ChatGPT. Is there anything else you would like to add?

You’re welcome! It was a pleasure discussing the topic with you. As an AI language model, I believe that the integration of AI-assisted writing into the creative writing process has the potential to expand the boundaries of human creativity and create new forms of literature that were previously unimaginable. However, it is important to approach this integration with care, and to be mindful of the potential ethical concerns that may arise. As with any new technology, it is important to be thoughtful and deliberate in our approach, in order to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks. Thank you for the insightful questions, and I hope to chat with you again soon!

Tim Pool is wrong

I like Tim Pool, and I think his reporting is generally quite good, so I’m definitely following him in the wake of the ongoing banking collapse here in the US. But I must respectfully disagree with him on one important point:

The banks aren’t failing because they went woke. They went woke because they were already failing. The financial system broke in 2008, and all the major players have been insolvent ever since—including our own government.

When a major corporation or financial institution “goes woke,” they are essentially buying an informal insurance policy by getting in line with the agenda being pushed by the major powers that be. They aren’t true believers. “Woke insurance” is a thing, and a sign as sure as anything that the institution is going stagnant.

But no, our society isn’t falling apart because we are going woke. We are going woke because our society is falling apart.

An unpopular truth

Women who refuse to have children and men who forsake their responsibilities as fathers will be the downfall of our civilization.

We all owe an incalculable debt to the generations that came before us, and the only way we can pay back any portion of that debt is to pay it forward. It’s not enough just to “make the world a better place”: we must, ourselves, become a link in that generational chain that connects humanity’s past with its future, binding the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers.

I recognize that there are women who cannot have children, or who do not have the opportunity to have a healthy family of their own. I also recognize that there are fathers who want to be present in their children’s lives, but are deprived of that opportunity by forces outside of their control. I’m not talking about those people.

I’m talking about the people who have every opportunity to raise a family, and deliberately choose not to. In their selfishness, those people are unwittingly depriving themselves of the fulness of the human experience. More importantly, their selfishness is destroying our culture, our society, and our civilization.

If the West falls, it will be because of childless women and absent fathers.

This scenario would fulfill Ezra’s Eagle

UPDATE (6 November 2024): I have written a new post with my post-election thoughts on the Ezra’s Eagle prophecy, as well as an in-depth analysis of the lost ten tribes and how they may (or may not) play into the apocryphal prophecy. Read about it here.

UPDATE (12 August 2024): I don’t know why Google has made this old blog post their #2 result for the search term “Ezra’s Eagle,” but if that’s what brought you here, you probably should check out this page first, taken from Michael B. Rush’s book A Remnant Shall Return. As far as I can tell, he’s the one who discovered this obscure apocryphal prophecy and how it (might) speak to our day. He’s also posted the complete audiobook on YouTube:

To be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with or endorse everything that Rush says. In fact, I’m not even sure if I believe in the Ezra’s Eagle prophecy anymore, or in Rush’s interpretation of it. But if that’s what you’re looking for, his book is the place to start.

UPDATE (21 July 2024): With everything that has happened in the past week, I have posted an update to this scenario, which could still play out very similarly to how I outlined it in this post. You can find that update here.

ORIGINAL POST (6 March 2023): For the last couple of months, I have been fascinated with the prophecy of Ezra’s Eagle as laid out by Michael B. Rush. I’m reading his book A Remnant Shall Return right now, and while some of the stuff sounds crazy to me (like the idea that the lost ten tribes will come down from space and save America from the Antichrist), I think he may be on to something with his interpretation of Ezra’s vision in chapters 11 and 12 of 2nd Esdras.

If you’re not familiar with Ezra’s Eagle, you can read this sample chapter from his book that explains it, or you can watch this video that he put out. Or you can read the chapters on your own and study the diagram in this video, which lays it out pretty well:

The TL;DR is that the prophet Ezra had a vision where he saw a three-headed eagle with twenty feathers, where each feather represents a different ruler who reigns for an appointed time. Some of the feathers are short, indicating a ruler whose time was cut unnaturally short.

The traditional interpretation of this vision is that the eagle represents the Roman Empire, but Michael B. Rush discovered that the sequence of rulers corresponds much closer to the United States, starting with President Hoover. Why Hoover? Because he was a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a major deep state organ, and the eagle represents not the United States per se, but the American Empire ruled by the deep state.

This interpretation of Ezra’s Eagle probably reached its height, at least in conservative Latter-day Saint circles, around 2018 or 2019. Its proponents predicted that Trump, as the first of the four short feathers before the reign of the three eagle heads, would either be assassinated or removed from office by impeachment. Then the 2020 elections happened, and a lot of people said “well, it can’t be true, because Trump served out his complete term.”

…except did he? Laying aside the question of whether the 2020 election was stolen, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the January 6th “insurrection” was, in fact, a color revolution perpetrated on American soil by our own intelligence agencies, with the intent of permanently removing Trump from power and installing a compliant puppet regime in Biden-Harris. That’s why there were so many federal agents and informants like Ray Epps urging the rioters to storm the Capitol, and that’s also why many of the Capitol police stood aside and let the rioters in—because the deep state wanted an “insurrection,” because it would provide the justification for everything that came after. Remember, General Milley reached out to his counterpart in the CCP before Trump finished his term. Also, Trump was impeached the second time and banned from social media before he finished his term.

In fact, the January 6th “insurrection” was an extremely ham-fisted and clumsy color revolution, as these things generally go. What the feds really needed was for the rioters to get violent, leaving dead bodies all over the place. Instead, most of the rioters were surprisingly well-behaved, stopping many of the more violent types among them from destroying property and staying out of the roped-off areas once they were inside. New footage revealed by Tucker Carlson shows that the “Qanon Shaman” was escorted around the Capitol by the police, as if he were on a tour. The only people who died in the Capitol that day were “insurrectionists.” Still, the deep state needed an “insurrection” to justify the crackdown, so that was the script they played, setting up the ridiculous show trials and repeating the lie incessantly on the legacy news media in the hopes that people would believe it—and many brainwashed blue-pill types actually did.

So personally, I find ample reason to believe that Trump was the first short feather, and the date that I would put as the cut-off point of his reign would be January 6th, 2020.

A Surprisingly Plausible Scenario

If Trump was indeed the first short feather mentioned in the prophecy, and Biden is the second short feather, the following verses are of special interest.

From 2 Esdras 11:

25 And I beheld, and, lo, the feathers that were under the wing thought to set up themselves and to have the rule.

26 And I beheld, and, lo, there was one set up, but shortly it appeared no more.

27 And the second was sooner away than the first.

28 And I beheld, and, lo, the two that remained thought also in themselves to reign:

29 And when they so thought, behold, there awaked one of the heads that were at rest, namely, it that was in the midst; for that was greater than the two other heads.

30 And then I saw that the two other heads were joined with it.

31 And, behold, the head was turned with them that were with it, and did eat up the two feathers under the wing that would have reigned.

32 But this head put the whole earth in fear, and bare rule in it over all those that dwelt upon the earth with much oppression; and it had the governance of the world more than all the wings that had been.

And from 2 Esdras 12:

24 And of those that dwell therein, with much oppression, above all those that were before them: therefore are they called the heads of the eagle.

25 For these are they that shall accomplish his wickedness, and that shall finish his last end.

26 And whereas thou sawest that the great head appeared no more, it signifieth that one of them shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain.

27 For the two that remain shall be slain with the sword.

28 For the sword of the one shall devour the other: but at the last shall he fall through the sword himself.

Now, here is the scenario that fulfills the prophecy:

Biden either does not run for president in 2024, or else he runs but loses the primary—an unprecedented political event, but we’ve had a lot of unprecedented events in the last few years, political and otherwise. Personally, I think it’s likely that Democrats will field Michelle Obama, and that she will rally so much support that she takes the nomination in a landslide.

Meanwhile, the Republican primaries come down to an ugly bruising between Trump and Desantis. By a narrow margin, Desantis wins and takes the nomination, but no one comes out of the fight smelling clean, and there’s a lot of bad feelings on the Republican side of the aisle, all of which combines to create an especially contentious election season, even more contentious than 2016 or 2020. If you thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was bad, wait ’til you see how the Democrats smear Desantis, and the unity and momentum they’ll have from a Michelle Obama run will make the Republican voters lose their minds as well.

Whoever the Republicans and Democrats choose to field, these will be the third and the fourth little feathers “who thought also in themselves to reign.”

Except they never will, because a major geopolitical crisis emerges with only weeks to go before the election. What sort of crisis? A Chinese invasion of Taiwan, for example, or a major escalation of the Russo-Ukraine war. Personally, I think the most likely crisis would be a complete collapse of the Ukrainian state, and victorious Russian forces rolling into Kiev.

The Biden administration is caught flat-footed by this crisis, and fails to formulate an effective response. At this point, a deep state triumvirate emerges from the shadows and reveals to the world the truth about Biden’s deteriorating health, proving indisputably that he is not fit to be president—and in the process, cutting his administration short “sooner away than the first.”

This triumvirate seizes power and suspends the constitution, declaring that the crisis is simply too great for our already divided country to face in its current state, especially with how contentious the elections have become. It will be just like how President W. Bush said that he had to destroy the free market in order to save it, except with our republic.

At this point, things get really bad. The wars in Ukraine and (possibly) Taiwan escalate and becomes truly global. Nuclear weapons are used. At some point, a second pandemic breaks out, this time with a much more deadly virus, and the leader of the triumvirate “shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain,” succumbing to the second pandemic. After his (or her) death, either the country falls into a civil war with the other two members of the triumvirate on opposing sides, or they both struggle internally for power, and both of them get assassinated. Things get really, really dark.

Then, if Michael B. Rush is right, the Antichrist comes to power.

Who are the members of the deep state triumvirate that suspends the constitution? My guess would be 1) someone from the military, such as General Milley, 2) someone with ties to the banks and the Federal Reserve system, such as Janet Yellen, and 3) someone in the State Department specifically over the Ukraine portfolio, such as Victoria Nuland. But this is just wild speculation on my part—though after Janet Yellen’s visit to Ukraine, I did start to think that Tom Luongo may be right about the deep state grooming her for the succession. My money’s on her for the first eagle head.

Granted, the longer this scenario plays out, the crazier it begins to sound. But we happen to live in very interesting times, where things that started as crazy conspiracy theories are increasingly turning out to be true.

I have no idea if the Ezra’s Eagle prophecy is true, but this scenario would qualify as a fulfillment. And laying aside the identities of the three eagle heads, it does seem increasingly plausible that Biden’s presidency gets cut short during a contentious election cycle, in which he is not the nominee for the Democrats. That’s what caught my attention in all of this.

I have a lot of other thoughts on this subject, but that’s all I’m going to share right now. What are your thoughts?

I will never apologize for refusing to use sensitivity readers.

The Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming estates have been in the news lately, after their publishers have worked with committees of “sensitivity readers” to rework their books in order to make them less offensive to woke sensibilities. The outcry was so great that Roald Dahl’s publishers agreed not to go through with their plan to sanitize his books, but to release the originals along with the censored versions (though I have heard conflicting stories indicating that the ebooks have been retroactively censored).

For many readers, this was their first time learning that “sensitivity readers” are a thing. While their outrage at the Orwellian rewriting of dead authors’ works is entirely justified, sadly, this is nothing new to the science fiction and fantasy field. Indeed, as Larry Correia and Steve Diamond pointed out in the latest episode of Writer Dojo, sensitivity readers have been a thing for at least a decade, and the most insidious examples of censorship are the ones we don’t see, when writers self-censor for fear of offending the outrage mobs.

For several decades now, science fiction and fantasy has skewed hard to the left, and the fact that there wasn’t a major outcry against these self-appointed Orwellian censors back in the 10s is a damning indictment of field as a whole. Why did it take until now, when the beloved works of Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming were threatened, for large numbers of people to speak out against this trend? Because all of the big names and major institutions in the SF&F field (or at least, the traditionally published side of it) tacitly approve of the censors and are quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) working to advance their politically correct agenda.

Back in the early 10s, when sensitivity readers were starting to become fashionable, I privately swore that I would never, under any circumstances, submit my work to any of these professional grievance mongers, nor internalize any of their rules to self-censor my work. If I was writing about another culture and needed to make sure I got things right, I would seek out feedback from a trusted friend who had personal experience with that culture (which is actually surprisingly easy here in Utah, thanks to how many of us have served missions in every corner of the Earth). I would not seek feedback from anyone whose paycheck depends on finding new and innovative ways to be offended.

The thing that’s sad, though, is how many writers have bent the knee to these cultural vandals, because they felt it was the only way to get their work out there. I happen to enjoy being a voice in the indie wilderness, but it’s not for everyone, and a lot of writers are self-censoring in order to keep their agents, or their publishing deals, or even just because they hope to have an agent or a publishing deal someday. It’s sad.

If I were feeling conspiratorial, I would point out that if my goal was to establish a neo-feudal, Orwellian police state, where religion was replaced with The Science, individuals were atomized away from their families, and the common folk were divided against each other by identitarian tribal distinctions in order to make them easier to govern, I would seek to capture the SF field before moving forward with my plans, so as to prevent a new 1984 or Brave New World from spoiling them. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all. If possible, I would subvert the SF field to actively advance my agenda, such as pushing the Marxist politics of envy, or the Malthusian economics of depopulation, or the post-modern rejection of any and all sexual mores and gender roles, so as to destroy the family as the fundamental unit of society. But none of that would really be necessary, so long as I made sure that nothing of any real truth or beauty came out of the field. All of the major awards would favor the ugliest lies that my propaganda machine put out into the world, and all of the professional organizations would pit authors and editors against each other according to their tribal identities, such as race or class or religion. Victimhood would be rewarded, and merit would be suppressed—and anyone in the field who dared to oppose this agenda would be harrassed relentlessly by my underlings, who would work to get them canceled from publishing deals and disinvited from major events.

In any case, I’m not going to be a part of that, even tangentially. Which is I I will never use sensitivity readers to review my work, nor apologize for refusing to bend the knee to the woke censors.

Why I’m not worried about AI replacing writers

So machine learning artificial intelligence has really been blowing up this past month, probably because of ChatGPT and all of the fascinating things that people are doing with it. I’ve been getting into it myself, using it to help write or improve my book descriptions, and also experimenting with it for writing stories.

At this point, any original fiction that ChatGPT writes is about the same quality as something written by an overly eager six year-old (minus the grammar and spelling errors), but I can see how that could change in the future, especially on a language learning model that’s trained on, say, Project Gutenberg, or the complete bibliographies of a couple of hundred major SF&F writers. The technology isn’t quite there yet, but in a few years it could be.

But apparently, that hasn’t stopped hordes of amateur writers and/or warrior forum types from using ChatGPT to spam the major magazines with AI-written stories. In fact, Clarkesworld recently closed to submissions because they were getting flooded with “stories written, co-written, or assisted by AI.” Neil Clarke wrote an interesting blog post on this problem, saying that this is a major growing problem for all of the magazines and that they will probably have to change the way they do business to deal with it.

So will AI eventually become so good that it replaces writers altogether? I don’t think so, and here’s why.

Replacement vs. collaboration

The gap between an AI that can do 100% of what a fiction writer can do and an AI that can do 90% is actually much wider than the gap between an AI that can do 90% and an AI that can only do 50%. That’s because both the 90%-effective AI and the 50%-effective AI require collaboration with a human in order to do the job. Neither of them can fully replace the human, though a human-AI team may be able to do the work of many humans working alone.

If we ever get to the point where AI replaces storytellers completely, we have much bigger problems than a few out-of-work science fiction writers. Storytelling lies at the heart of what it means to be human: we call ourselves “homo sapiens,” but we really should call ourselves “homo narrans,” since story is how we make sense of everything in our world. If an AI can replace that, then we as a species have become obsolete.

But I don’t think we’re going to ever reach that point. My wife is currently getting a PhD in computer science—specifically in machine learning and language models—and she believes that there is an inherent tradeoff between intelligences that can specialize well, and intelligences that can generalize well. AIs are master specialists, but humans are master generalists. If we ever build an AI that’s a master generalist, we may find that it’s actually much less intelligent than an average human, because of the tradeoff.

But all of that is purely speculative at this point. Right now, we really only have AIs that can do about 20% of what a fiction writer can do. In the coming years, we may ramp that up to 50% or even 90%, but anything less than 100% is not going to fully replace me.

Tools, force multipliers, and the nature of writing

However, that doesn’t mean that the thing we currently call “writing” isn’t going to change in some pretty dramatic ways, much as how the internal combustion engine dramatically changed the thing we call “driving.” And with these changes, we may very well get to the point where the market just can’t support as many professional writers, and the vast majority of us have to find other lines of work.

Conversely, it may actually expand the market for “reading” and create new demand for “writers,” as “reading” becomes more interactive and “writing” turns into an AI-mediated collaboration with the “reader.” Kind of like a Choose Your Own Adventure that writes itself, based on the parameters set by the “writer.”

I have no idea, but the possibilities are fascinating, and the writers who are sure to lose are the ones who fail to confront the fact that their whole world is about to change—indeed, is already changing.

I think what it’s going to come down to is who owns the tools: not just who can use them, but who can modify them, personalize them, and use them to create original work. If copyright law decrees that the person who owns the AI also owns anything created with the AI’s assistance, that is going to be a major buzzkill… unless we get to the point where everyone can have their own personalized AI, which would be pretty cool. It would also solve a lot of the problems emerging from all of the super-woke filters that are getting slapped on ChatGPT.

Personally, I’m looking forward to the day where I can use an AI model to write fifty novels across a dozen pen names in a single year. What an incredible force multiplier that would be! But only if those novels are “mine,” whatever we determine that means.

So really, instead of arguing about whether AI will replace authors, what we really ought to be talking about are the aspects of writing and storytelling that drive us to create in the first place, and how those aspects can translate into a world where the nature of “writing” looks radically different than it does right now.

The “but I already know how it ends” problem

There is one problem that is unique to the written word, and it’s something that every writer has to confront when making the leap from amateur to professional (or even just from an amateur who dabbles in prose to an amateur who finishes what they start). The problem can best be summed up by this:

Why should I bother writing this story if I already know how it ends?

Unlike visual media such as TV, movies, video games, or illustrations, the art of the written word exists 100% in the reader’s head. These things we call “words” are really just symbols that convey thought from one mind to another, and have zero meaning outside of the head of the person reading. If you don’t believe me, try picking up a classic novel written in a foreign language that you don’t understand, and see how well you enjoy it.

But when we read, we like to be surprised on some level. There is something about the novelty of the story that appeals to us—indeed, that’s why we call them “novels.” The trouble is that the very act of creating a novel kills the novelty of it. At some point, you know how it’s going to end, and after that point the act of writing becomes a chore—or rather, it can be, unless you find something else about the process that fulfills you.

Some professional writers deliberately put off that moment for as long as they can, never figuring out their ending until it comes as surprise, even to them. Others look for fulfillment in something else, like the artfulness of their prose, or the dramatic suspense built up by their use of language. Still others just plow ahead, accepting this loss of novelty as a cost of doing business.

But however they choose to deal with it, every writer has to confront this problem in some manner before they make the leap from amateur to professional. And this is perhaps the biggest reason why I’m not too worried about AI replacing me as an author: because even an AI model that can do 90% of what I do will still require its human collaborator to address this problem.

Fanfiction and derivative works

Of course, the amateur vs. professional problem will affect some genres more than others: “write me a romance just like ____ where the male love interest has black hair instead and works in my office” is going to be just fine for a romance novel addict who just wants their happily-ever-after without any uncomfortable surprises. But we already have this: it’s called fanfiction.

Which is not to say that all fanfiction is formulaic and predictable. But the thing that sets fanfiction apart from original fiction are the things make it a derivative work: things like characters and settings that are already well-established, or a rehashing of storylines that were created by someone else.

This is an area where I think AI shows the most promise, and will turn out to be the most disruptive: not in creating original works, but in creating derivative works. Imagine if you could plug a novel into ChatGPT and tell it to rewrite the ending so that the girl ends up with your favorite character, or your favorite villain wins in the end. ChatGPT can’t do that very well right now, but I don’t think we’re far from building an AI language learning model that can—especially if it’s trained on actual books, instead of online content.

What I foresee is a world where AI blurs the line between fanfiction and original fiction so much that it becomes normal to read a bunch of these derivative works after you’ve read the original. Indeed, it may become a game to see who can make the most popular derivative work, and the popularity of some of them may very well exceed the popularity of the original.

Or it might become normal to run everything you read through an AI filter that removes offensive language, or the sex scenes that you were going to skip anyway (or conversely, an AI filter that adds offensive language and sex scenes). Taken to an extreme, this could lead to some really dystopian outcomes that further divide our already polarized world. We’ll have to see how it shakes out.

But all of this derivative content is only possible if there’s original content to derive it from. And while AI may lower the barrier of entry somewhat to creating original content (or not, since there really aren’t any barriers to entry right now, aside from the time and practice it takes to become proficient at your craft), the problem of “but I already know how it ends” will keep most dabblers and amateurs in the realm of creating derivative works, not original ones.

The act of “writing” and “reading” may change dramatically based on the force-multiplying effect of these tools. We may even get to a point where “writing” and “reading,” as most of us understand it, bear little resemblance to how we understand it today. But unless our very humanity becomes obsolete, I’m confident that I will still be able to carve out a place for myself as a writer.

Can this video possibly be more Georgian?

All it needs is a couple of old men playing backgammon on a folding table by the side of the road… although that’s something you see more of in the town, not the village.

For goodness’ sakes, it even has a rooster crowing at the end!

The Babylon Bee Guide to Every Christian Denomination

Saw this video a couple of days ago, thought it was hilarious—especially the parts about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “Mormons? Just kidding—we said Christian denominations!” And then later… “Unitarian Universalists? They’re atheists. We’ll even take the Mormons over these guys.”

Although, to be fair… if Joseph Smith’s first vision was real, and God really did tell fourteen year-old Joseph not to join any church, because He didn’t recognize any of them as His true church and kingdom… then of course every other denomination that rejects the restored gospel would also reject the Mormons as not being “true Christians.”

But yeah, one thing we definitely need to work on is our beard game. Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith—we used to be even more awesome than the Church of Christ with their Duck Dynasty guys, but man, we’ve really lost it in the last hundred years!

Are vaccine-related deaths decimating the SF field?

This is an extremely polarizing and contentious issue right now, so I’m going to try to make this post as fact-based and non-sensational as possible.

Full disclosure: I never got the covid shot. My wife and I both had covid before the “vaccines” became available, and decided that our natural immunity provided enough protection for us. We were also trying to become pregnant, and even in January 2021, we had heard rumors that the shots were affecting both men’s and women’s fertility, as well as women’s menstrual cycles, and didn’t feel that the risk was worth it, in spite of the tremendous social pressure to get “vaccinated.”

At the end of the day, we simply did not trust that the “vaccines” were safe (and I put “vaccine” in quotes, because we now know that these shots do not provide lasting immunity, nor do they prevent transmission. The health establishment literally had to change the definition of “vaccine” for that word to apply to these treatments). We were wary of the fact that the emergency use provisions absolved the manufacturers of any liability, and that the long-term effects of these shots was unknown. In our family’s calculation, the potential risks outweighed the potential benefits, especially since we already had natural immunity and were unlikely to contract covid again.

In the past year, some very disturbing things about the “vaccines” have come to light. A recent poll by Rasmussen shows that more than 1 in 4 Americans believe they know someone who has died of the covid “vaccines”—not from covid itself, but from the vaccines. Interestingly, more Democrats (about 1 in 3) than Republicans (about 1 in 4) claim that they know someone, which is interesting, because the political left was much more taken with the “vaccine” mania than the political right. Remember that super cringey vaccine song on Colbert’s show?

The last two years have been crazy, for sure. But how has it affected the science fiction and fantasy world? The January issue of Locus Magazine made me curious about this, since Greg Bear recently passed away “after complications from heart surgery,” and the obituary section mentioned two other people under the age of 60, one of whom “died unexpectedly.”

So I went through all of the back issues of Locus from January 2021 to the present, and made a comprehensive list of every person mentioned in the obituaries, with their age and cause of death. If they died of a stroke or an accute heart-related issue, I bolded their name, since the mechanism for death appears to be related to blood clots caused by the spike protein that the mRNA “vaccine” is designed to generate. Also, I bolded the name of anyone 70 or younger who died without the cause of death listed. The global average life expectancy is just north of 70, which is lower than the US, but I decided to take the lower of those numbers. I also bolded any names where the cause was listed as covid, since many people who died in the first couple of weeks after getting the shot were automatically listed as covid, especially in the initial rollout.

Here is the list:

JAN 2021

  • Ben Bova (88): “contracting COVID-19, developing Pneumonia, and suffering a stroke.”
  • Phyllis Eisensetein (74): “suffered a stroke in January 2020 and entered hospice care not long after.”
  • Richard Corben (80): “died December 2, 2020 after heart surgery.”
  • Dean Ing (89): cause not listed (died July 21, 2020).

FEB 2021

  • James Gunn (97): cause not listed.
  • Storm Constantine (64): “following a long illness.”
  • Anton Strout (50): “died unexpectedly.”
  • Jael (83): cause not listed.
  • Alison Lurie (94): “in hospice.”
  • Richard West (76): “of COVID-19.”
  • Joseph Altairac (63): cause not listed.

MAR 2021

  • Kathleen Ann Goonan (68): cause not listed.
  • Rowena Morrill (76): “following years of poor health.”
  • Jean-Claude Carrière (89): “of natural causes.”

APR 2021

  • Norton Juster (91): “complications following a stroke.”
  • Dean Morrissey (69): cause not listed.
  • Michael G. Adkisson (65): cause not listed.

MAY 2021

  • John C. Pelan (63): “of an apparent heart attack.”
  • Wanda June Alexander (69): “diagnosed with lung cancer last year, and though she underwent successful treatment, her lungs were severely damaged, and she entered hospice care in January 2021.”

JUN 2021

  • Marvin Kaye (83): “in hospice care.”
  • Don Sakers (62): “of a heart attack.”
  • Jan Stirling (71): cause not listed.
  • Jim Rittenhouse (64): “in hospice care.”
  • Anish Deb (69): “of COVID-19.”

JUL 2021

  • Bob Brown (78): “after a valiant battle with esophageal cancer.”

AUG 2021

  • William F. Nolan (93): “of complications from an infection.”
  • Stephen Hickman (72): “of natural causes.”
  • Joe McKinney (52): “in his sleep.”
  • Paul Alexander (83): cause not listed.
  • John Longendorfer (90): cause not listed.

SEP 2021

  • Elizabeth Anne Hull (84): cause not listed.
  • Patricia Kennealy-Morrison (75): cause not listed.
  • C. Dean Andersson (75): “in his sleep… after a long illness.”
  • J.W. Rinzler (58): “of pancreatic cancer.”
  • Ron Weighell (70): “a few weeks after suffering a stroke.”
  • Lorna Toolis (68): cause not listed.
  • Judi B. Castro (58): “following a brief illness.”

OCT 2021

  • Erle Korshak (97): cause not listed.
  • L. Neil Smith (75): “after a lengthy battle with heart and kidney disease.”
  • Carol Carr (82): “of lung cancer.”
  • Genevieve DiModica (73): “of natural causes.”

NOV 2021

  • Mary Kay Kare (69): “of a blood infection.”
  • Gary Paulsen (82): “of cardiac arrest.”
  • Lou Antonelli (64): cause not listed.
  • Douglas Barbour (81): “of lung cancer.”
  • Otacilio Costa D’Assuncao Barros (67): “was found dead in his apartment… after two days without contact by neighbors. The cause of death has not been disclosed.”

DEC 2021

  • Petra Mayer (46): “died suddenly of a pulmonary embolism.”
  • Robert Thurston (84): cause not listed.
  • Jim Fiscus (76): “died suddenly.”
  • Catherine M. Morrison (52): “after a brief illness.”

JAN 2022

  • Anne Rice (80): “of complications from a stroke.”
  • Diana G. Gallagher (75): “of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”
  • William G. Contento (74): “after a long struggle with prostate cancer.”
  • Jeremy G. Byrn (57): “after a long illness.”
  • Chris Achilleos (74): cause not listed.
  • Jose Luis Benicio da Fonseca (84): cause not listed.

FEB 2022

  • Willie Siros (69): cause not listed.
  • Dave Wolverton (64): “after suffering a severe head injury falling down the stairs the previous day.”
  • Ron Goulart (89): cause not listed.
  • John Jos. Miller (67): cause not listed.
  • J. Brian Clark (93): cause not listed.
  • Sally Gwylan (67): “in a traffic accident.”
  • Jane E. Hawkins (70): “was a cancer survivor, but she received a terminal diagnosis and went into hospice.”
  • Elizabeth Miller (82): cause not listed.
  • Bill Wright (84): “fallen at home and ‘thought he had broken his back.’”
  • Chuck Verrill (unknown): “after a long illness.”
  • Athos Eichler Cardoso (87): cause not listed.

MAR 2022

  • Angelica Gorodischer (93): cause not listed.
  • Tom Dupree (72): “of cardio-respiratory arrest.”
  • Harold R. Johnson (68): “of lung cancer.”

APR 2022

  • Andy Remic (50): “of cancer.”
  • Faren Miller (71): “after being hospitalized with serious respiratory problems.”
  • Shirley Hughes (94): cause not listed.
  • Melissa Mead (62): cause not listed.
  • Priscilla Tolkien (92): “after a brief illness.”
  • Aiki Flinthart (unknown): “after receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis.”

MAY 2022

  • Robert C. Cornett (69): cause not listed.
  • Bill Johnson (65): cause not listed.
  • Valerio Evangelisti (69): cause not listed.
  • Joel Houssin (68): “after a long battle with MS.”
  • Carlos Emilio C. Lima (65): “from an infection following surgery.”
  • Lygia Fagundes Telles (98-103): cause not listed.

JUN 2022

  • Patricia A. McKillip (74): cause not listed.
  • Sergey Dyachenko (77): cause not listed.

JUL 2022

  • Ken Kelly (76): cause not listed.

AUG 2022

  • Eric Flint (75): cause not listed.
  • Geoffrey H. Goodwin (50): “of heart failure.”
  • Dorothy J. Heydt (80): cause not listed.
  • Barbara Haldeman (Barbara Delaplace) (69): cause not listed.
  • Jonathan Lyons (52): “succumbed to injuries after being mugged.”

SEP 2022

  • Nichelle Nichols (89): “of heart failure.”
  • Alexei Panshin (82): cause not listed.
  • Robert “Bob” Self (55): “as the result of an accident.”
  • Wayn McCalla (53): “following a long illness.”
  • Roland J. Green (76): cause not listed.

OCT 2022

  • Peter Straub (79): “after a long illness.”
  • Bruce Taylor (75): “after a brief hospital stay. He had a heart condition and was in poor health recently.”
  • Maureen Kincaid Speller (63): “she had cancer.”
  • J.G. “Huck” Huckenpohler (81): cause not listed.

NOV 2022

  • Robert A. Madle (102): “died peacefully in his sleep.”
  • Albert E. Cowdrey (88): cause not listed.
  • Hilary Mantel (70): cause not listed.
  • Matthew Mather (52): “died suddenly.”
  • Lani Forbes (35): “of neuroendocrine cancer.”

DEC 2022

  • Tom Maddox (77): “of a stroke.”
  • Martin Morse Wooster (64): “the victim of a hit-and-run.”
  • Jill Pinkwater (81): cause not listed.
  • Sue Strong Hassler (84): “of complications from back surgery and COVID.”
  • Anne Fakhouri (48): “following a long illness.”
  • Justin E.A. Busch (63): cause not listed.
  • Ned Dameron (79): “of ALS.”

JAN 2023

  • Greg Bear (71): “after complications from heart surgery.”
  • Anne Harris (58): “after suffering a stroke.”
  • Marcus Sedgwick (54): “died unexpectedly.”

To be clear, there may be benign explanations for many or even most of the people whose names are bolded. Strokes and heart attacks have been killing people long before the covid “vaccines” existed, and continue to kill people without any help from the “vaccines.” Also, many people who died under 70 may simply have been in poor health—after all, it’s not like the SF field is known for robust physical fitness. However, there may also be people on this list who did die of vaccine-related issues, whose names I did not bold because they were over 70 and the cause wasn’t listed. So it cuts both ways.

My purpose is not to compile a comprehensive list of vaccine-related deaths in the SF field, but to point out some deaths that appear to be suspect. And of the 114 people listed, more of them “died unexpectedly” or “died suddenly” than died of covid, which is worth noting.

If you haven’t seen the documentary Died Suddenly, it’s worth watching, even though it does have some flaws. Most notably, toward the end it recycles some disturbing footage of people who either did not die, or who died before the pandemic, implying that they all died of the vaccines. You can find a much more in-depth and non-sensational treatment of vaccine-related deaths and injuries on Chris Martenson’s channel, especially in this video where he interviews several morticians about the clotting issue:

Vaccine safety is a very serious issue, and every day, it seems that we are learning new things about the covid “vaccines” that call into question all of our assumptions and beliefs. The science fiction field has always leaned to the political left, especially on the traditional publishing side. For the past two years, many of our conventions and other events have pushed mask mandates, or required proof of vaccination, including our own LTUE here in Utah.

Has this lockstep, unquestioning, and at times almost militant advocacy of the establishment narrative led to the tragic loss of several writers and artists before their time? Has it decimated—indeed, is it continuing to decimate—the talented creators in our field? How many wonderful stories will never be written because of this? How many voices will no longer be heard?

I hope that we can come to a place where we can honestly start asking these questions. Because if we can’t, then the science fiction and fantasy field has lost much more than those who have died, and the gifts they would have shared with us.