Comment by gabriel666smith

No, quite the opposite, apologies if I was unclear.

I think that LLMs are a tool, and a tool that is still in the process of being iterated on.

I think that how this new tool could be applied and iterated on by humans who were, I think, uniquely talented and innovative with language is a useful question to ask oneself.

It’s a rhetorical device, essentially, to push back against the idea that the sanctity of ‘the novel’ (or other traditional, non-technological, word-based art forms) would somehow be punctured if innovative artists were / are given access to new tools. I feel that idea devalues both the human artist (who has agency to choose which tools to use, how to use them, and how to iterate on those tools) and the form itself.

I don’t believe that anyone who really adores ‘the novel’ for its formal strengths can also believe that ‘the novel’ won’t withstand [insert latest technology, cinema, VHS, internet, LLMs, etc].