[roenxi]

Copying writers is probably a copyright thing. But the experience with generative AI for images was that, at least for the early models, it was good to put things like "masterpiece, highest quality" in the prompt. The model biased towards average rather than trying to maintain a high standard. The more general problem here could easily be that people haven't figured out how to prompt interesting writing from an LLM yet.

Although my personal theory would be that LLMs are just writing how someone without an ego or firsthand knowledge would write - it has a bunch of different angles it could take but has no particular reference to draw on to determine which is true. Great human writers are often cataloguing their extra-literary experiences. How is ChatGPT supposed to be inspired by a beautiful sunset to capture it in a way that has never been done before? It is capable of the writing part, but the inspiration part is a lot harder for it.

[theturtle32]

The notion that generating something "in the style of" a human creator is a violation of copyright is categorically false. Copyright is only infringed when a work is substantially copied. Generating something new but with a similar feel is fair game. That OUGHT to be (but, obnoxiously, seems not to be) universally uncontroversial.

Human creators might bristle and find it distasteful to have works automatically generated in a style they spent a long time honing, but it is most certainly not a violation of copyright.

[6510]

There is nothing between the lines.