The Human Element in Storytelling: Why AI Can't Replace Authors (Yet)

Grappling with AI, authors, and narrative ethics

Hey everyone, Jim here from Narrative First and Subtxt. Let's chat about a hot topic that's been buzzing around the writing community—authors suing OpenAI over copyright infringement. John Grisham, George R.R. Martin, and other big names have thrown their hats into the ring, worried that AI like GPT-4 is threatening their creative output. Now, this is a fascinating moment for all of us who study story theory and narrative structures. And you know what? Stephen King has chimed in, and I've got to say, the guy gets it.

A Dawn of Dire Lawsuits

So, let's break this down. The lawsuit led by the Authors Guild includes some heavy hitters. They argue that AI is a "massive commercial enterprise" that systematically "steals" their copyrighted work. What's intriguing is their concern about how AI might destroy our "incredible literary culture."

The thing is, storytelling isn’t just about arranging words in a particular sequence. It's about the emotional depth, the texture, and the subtleties that make each story unique. We humans project our insecurities, dreams, and perceptions onto what we read, and it's those nuanced layers that make storytelling an art.

The King's Perspective

Enter Stephen King, one of the most prolific authors of our time. His take? AI isn't there yet. Sure, you could dump thousands of books into a machine, but the output—while potentially interesting—isn't deeply compelling. King describes a scene he wrote where a surprising moment—a bulge in a dead man's forehead—was a creative spark that was entirely unforeseen.

That's what AI lacks—the ability to experience a "genuine creative moment." Could AI come up with that unexpected bulge? As King reluctantly puts it: Not yet.

Linear Math vs. The Human Experience

This is where I feel there's a misunderstanding. These lawsuits seem to suggest that what authors do can be reduced to mere linear math, which—come on, let's be real—misses the point. To fully encapsulate the human experience, you’d have to model the way we project our own inner world onto what we read. Even then, the intent and the message behind the story would likely need the touch of a human creator.

The Future of AI and Storytelling

Look, we're entering an era where AI has some creative potential. It can aid in the writing process, offer suggestions, and even help break story. But at the end of the day, it can't replicate the irreplaceable human element—the intricate dance of lived experiences, deep emotional understanding, and the unpredictable spark of creativity that each author brings to the table.

So should we be worried that AI will write the next "Game of Thrones" or "The Stand"? No, not really. In fact, these lawsuits might inadvertently be lessening the value of the author’s work by implying that storytelling is something easily mimicked by linear algorithms.

And that’s where I’m really concerned about this panic.

We're still at a point where AI and human creativity can coexist, each offering something unique to the grand tapestry of storytelling. And who knows, perhaps AI might someday be a tool that helps us understand story structure and theory even better (Oh wait, that already exists 😁). But for now, let's give credit where credit is due—human authors are irreplaceable, and that's something worth celebrating.