Definitely an interesting topic. I actually went and plugged a bunch of my stories/poetry into the new OpenAI human/ai classifier to see what it spit out and it all came back human-written, so at least there's that. :)
I see completions as just one more tool in the writer's arsenal, and not something that you can just let run wild on its own. I don't know my ratio of finger-written words vs completed words, but I think the line blurs even further when also doing (sometimes dozens of) revisions across both categories of words. (Just to clarify: "revisions" here being used in the traditional editing sense, not just regenerating/editing prompts, which I usually _also_ end up doing several times before finding something worth editing).
I also have a smaller WIP editor I'm working on that uses other AI models to flag words/phrases I could replace and suggests alternatives, among other smaller editing replacements. If I have an AI swap a single word out in a sentence for me, I'd personally still consider myself the author of that sentence. For me at least, writing is more about wholly encoding a story for a reader to experience -- word choice and structure are a few small tools to accomplish that, albeit incredibly important ones.
>I personally would kinda view your role as a creative director and curator of gpt completions.
I like this, but I'd probably change it for myself and all writers to creative director and curator of words. Not too different, IMO. :)
I personally am not hung up on the distinction between AI and human work, including creative. I don't especially care who painted an awesome painting, or wrote an awesome book, unless I'm somehow connected to that human.
> I've written probably 60k+ words over the years using it
Is this how you view it? You wrote the words?
I personally would kinda view your role as a creative director and curator of gpt completions.
I think it's going to be an interesting decade wrt content creation.