This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.
I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.
Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.
I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together
My experience has been that using AI only accelerates this process, because the AI has no concept of what good architecture is or how to reduce entropy. Unless you can one-shot the entire architecture, it’s going to immediately go off the rails. And if the architecture was that simple to begin with, there really wasn’t much value in the AI in the first place.
This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.
I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.
Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.
My experience has been that using AI only accelerates this process, because the AI has no concept of what good architecture is or how to reduce entropy. Unless you can one-shot the entire architecture, it’s going to immediately go off the rails. And if the architecture was that simple to begin with, there really wasn’t much value in the AI in the first place.