AI map books on Amazon?

[mrlolicon93]

So i was browsing Amazon recently and i came across a few books that caught my eye they are all supposed to be books about pedophilia but instead look like they were created using ai instead of being actual real books.

The titles i found are called Stupid Brain by James Peak which apparently is supposed to be a novel about a NOMap released in 2023 A Map For Maps also by James Peak which is supposed to be a support guide for maps released this year in 2025 and Unspeakable controlling the monster within by George Peters released in 2021 which is supposed to be another support/guide book.

Looking up these author names absolutely nothing comes up which imo is a possible sign they were created using ai.

There is also, a novel simply called Pedo created by a 4chan user who was also. probably using ai as well but i think that one was just done as a meme.

What are your thoughts on this?

I really hate ai and it is part of the reason why i can't trust modern media being created/released in the 2020s and beyond.

To be clear i have nothing against ai being used for fun but when ai is used to create a product or a piece of media i think that's a problem.

[Outis]

I don't have a problem with AI personally, I see it as a valuable tool. I mean when early Word Processors came out people hated them and said they'll kill the art of writing and literature but it didn't, it just saved authors time because they could edit and update texts. I think AI will be the same, it'll change how we created but it won't remove people from the creative process. I write code for a living and I find AI great for writing all the scaffolding code that takes so much time and it frees me to focus on the more complicated content and thinking about what needs to be built and how to structure it. We work as a team really, it does the time consuming stuff that it's good at and I focus on the bits I'm good at. I think for storywriting it'll be the same, AI will help to develop characters, scenes, research plot points, like if the killer did X then what clues might be left behind that the detective could find while ensuring they are realistic considering actual modern day forensics. But it'll be the human who moulds and writes much of the content, spins the story, chooses the twists. I actually started to write a story with AI help. I spend time with an AI working out a fictitious place, cast of characters, relationships, plot poinds, twists and got as far as a map of the chapters and would would happen in each. Then I got the AI to write the story chapter by chapter. Three chapters in I stopped because the story stank. The plot was good, all the storyboarding and research was really strong, but the story lacked depth. That's where the real author is needed.

But I do like the idea of stories that carry subtle messages that are positive towards maps. The whole reason I started that story was to create a story that didn't involve maps and wasn't about maps but warned of the dangers of targetting a group of people for hidden purposes of the state. It was to have some references back to the past (since it was set in the future) to today and how similar dark approaches were used targeting immigrants and people of sexualities such as minor attraction. The aim was first and foremost to tell a good story, secondary to get people to think about what is happening today towards maps in reference to the very different but related dark forces in the story.

[mrlolicon93]

I don't have a problem with AI personally, I see it as a valuable tool. I mean when early Word Processors came out people hated them and said they'll kill the art of writing and literature but it didn't, it just saved authors time because they could edit and update texts. I think AI will be the same, it'll change how we created but it won't remove people from the creative process. I write code for a living and I find AI great for writing all the scaffolding code that takes so much time and it frees me to focus on the more complicated content and thinking about what needs to be built and how to structure it. We work as a team really, it does the time consuming stuff that it's good at and I focus on the bits I'm good at. I think for storywriting it'll be the same, AI will help to develop characters, scenes, research plot points, like if the killer did X then what clues might be left behind that the detective could find while ensuring they are realistic considering actual modern day forensics. But it'll be the human who moulds and writes much of the content, spins the story, chooses the twists. I actually started to write a story with AI help. I spend time with an AI working out a fictitious place, cast of characters, relationships, plot poinds, twists and got as far as a map of the chapters and would would happen in each. Then I got the AI to write the story chapter by chapter. Three chapters in I stopped because the story stank. The plot was good, all the storyboarding and research was really strong, but the story lacked depth. That's where the real author is needed.

But I do like the idea of stories that carry subtle messages that are positive towards maps. The whole reason I started that story was to create a story that didn't involve maps and wasn't about maps but warned of the dangers of targetting a group of people for hidden purposes of the state. It was to have some references back to the past (since it was set in the future) to today and how similar dark approaches were used targeting immigrants and people of sexualities such as minor attraction. The aim was first and foremost to tell a good story, secondary to get people to think about what is happening today towards maps in reference to the very different but related dark forces in the story.

You seem to forget that AI doesn't create stuff out of thin air it steals from stuff that already exist so you are plagiarizing works done by actual humans.

[Fragment]

You seem to forget that AI doesn't create stuff out of thin air it steals from stuff that already exist so you are plagiarizing works done by actual humans.

Because human authors write novels without ever having read a novel themselves?

All art is plagiarism.

[mrlolicon93]

You seem to forget that AI doesn't create stuff out of thin air it steals from stuff that already exist so you are plagiarizing works done by actual humans.

Because human authors write novels without ever having read a novel themselves?

All art is plagiarism.

There is a huge difference between being inspired by other works and a robot mushing stuff from already existing content together to try and create something.

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

Unspeakable controlling the monster within by George Peters

I've met this author at the last B4U-ACT conference. I didn't get the impression he had used ai but I haven't read the book nor did he mention it.

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

Oh I forgot to say, the person who wrote Stupid Brain and A Map for MAPs is on virped. I just remembered I met him at at the b4u-act conference too. Ah, yes, he even gave me a free copy of his book A Map for MAPs.

[mrlolicon93]

Oh I forgot to say, the person who wrote Stupid Brain and A Map for MAPs is on virped. I just remembered I met him at at the b4u-act conference too. Ah, yes, he even gave me a free copy of his book A Map for MAPs.

They were written by the same guy?

[mrlolicon93]

Unspeakable controlling the monster within by George Peters

I've met this author at the last B4U-ACT conference. I didn't get the impression he had used ai but I haven't read the book nor did he mention it.

Interesting if he didn't mention it how did you know it was him?

Did someone else say it was him?

[Fragment]

There is a huge difference between being inspired by other works and a robot mushing stuff from already existing content together to try and create something.

I'd say AI is actually less like plagiarism because it draws on millions of books, not just the hundreds or thousands that humans have read. Not to mention the input it requires in the form of prompts. Perhaps you could call an AI novel plagiarised. But how much plagiarism from a single work? Unless you actually specify a writing style in the prompt, you're looking at 0.0001% plagiarism from any one source.

I also degree with you stating that humans are "inspired by" other works. Human language is 100% dependent on input. The sentences we make are entirely based on sentences we've experienced. That's not inspiration, it's mushing stuff together from language already seen and trying to create something.