> I don't think any person who actually has worked on anything creative in their life would compare a personal style to a model that can output in nearly any style at extreme speeds. And even if you're inspired by a specific author, invariably what happens is it becomes mix of yourself + those influences, not a damn near-copy.

I don't think anyone who has ever read a novel in their life would say that an AI can write literature at all, in any style.

> not a damn near-copy.

The obvious solution is to just treat it as if a human did it. If you did not know the authorship of the output and thought it was a human, would you still consider it copyright infringement? If yes, fair enough. If no, then i think is clearly not a "damn near-copy"

>> How many books can you write per second?

On my laptop, using modern tools backed by AI? ... many.

>> How how many books per second can you read to influence and change your personal style?

Thanks now to AI, hundreds. I can plug the output of the book-reading AI into the input of the tool I use to write my books and thereby update my personal style to incorporate all the latest trends. Blame the idiots who are paying me for my books.

So, zero. You yourself: zero.

You completely ignored the premise of the question.

You should read the response more carefully. Generative models are just tools. If I use one to write a story it’s no less a story that I wrote than if I’d chiseled it into a Persian mountainside.

It pretty clearly is. Less of a story that is.

Careful, you’re saying the quiet part out loud.

This is clearly a bad-faith response to the point that the GP was making