Well, maybe those reviews came from reddit, and maybe they came from passersby moved by outrate at the misrepresentation of the content.

Regardless of anything else, if the art is AI art, it should be labeled. I'd feel the same about art done by a human artist. The author of the text shouldn't be claiming credit for the art. Credit where credit is due.

But whether from reddit or not, these reviews do indicate that not everybody is cool with AI. I see the same kind of reactions on Substack, which, whatever else it may, isn't a hellscape.

All that seems to matter to most consumers is if the end product is entertaining, inciteful or has artistic merit.

AI is incapable of original insight.

Sometimes, even beneficial tech languishes. We've had the know-how to clone organs (for transplant purposes) for a long time. The process has never been implemented because of fears about cloning complete human beings. I understand the fear, but lives are being lost because of it.

Ai is really popular with people--as long as it doesn't threaten them. As unemployment grows, and the economy teeters toward another recession, that won't long be the case, particularly not when politicians start calling it AIcession. (Of course, the US being so polarized, they'll disagree on what to call it and blame each other for it.)

I've always wished I could draw as easily as I can write. Would love to have the ability to command a program to produce a graphic novel--especially since all my favorite artists are dead. However, from long experience I know that perception of quality in graphics varies widely from one consumer to the next. Some very pedestrian artists have gotten a lot of work over the years from people who can't differentiate competent drawing from a hack mess. So do you have a link?

I think AI is cheating a bit when it comes to writing, but that's because I'm a writer. If I were a narrator or artist, then I'd probably feel the same way about those uses. 

However, PJ is right. The public probably doesn't care.  I see it all the time in fundraising campaigns.  AI art seems to get more attention than the other campaigns.  And it less expensive to use it. 

At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual and what they are comfortable using/buying.

ETA: I'm not sure AI could come up with what I'm writing into this latest fairytale.  And if it did, they'd probably think it was a glitch. LOL

All that seems to matter to most consumers is if the end product is entertaining, inciteful or has artistic merit. No one owes an artist a career, a job or validation. If someone can use various tools (automation et al) to get it done faster while being more lucrative - sounds like a win.

We're currently in that 'rock-n-roll' is the devil's music period with AI. It will pass. Eventually, AI will be the new normalcy bias - how did we ever get by without robots?

We disagree then.  I'm not concerned about the source of the ideas so much as the source of the writing.

If the AI spits out some ideas, and he makes a story of it, that's fine by me.  I mean, you could throw plot ideas and character ideas and such into a box and randomly pull out a handful and use that as a challenge to write a story.  So, I don't see where it matters whether the AI randomly generates some story ideas or if you pull them out of a hat or whatever.

If he takes his own ideas and has AI "write" them, then I see that as an issue because of the issues we've discussed in these forums in the past.

If he has AI come up with the ideas and also has AI "write" them, then, again, that's an issue.

So, from my perspective, saying the ideas came from the author is not a defense because if the AI still "wrote" the dang things, then there's the potential problem.