Is Squibler Pro worth the cost?

Hey guys;
Do any of you write with the help of an AI?
I happened upon Squibler yesterday while searching for writing tools.
I am going to attempt a novel for NANOWRIMO, so I thought maybe Squibler could help me. I tried the free version, and it was the best I have seen so far.
I can get a monthly sub for $20, which would get me through November, or I can purchase an annual sub for the discounted price (40% off the regular annual price) of $115.20.
I guess it makes sense to try the monthly for $20 first, and if I like it a lot, and I want to continue using it after the 1st month, I can look for another discount on the annual plan.
They’re offering me 40% off now, but I am sure that these offers come along all the time, so no rush in buying the annual sub.

What do you think about Squibler? Is it the best available, or is there something better for a lower cost?

Thanks for your help
Frank

Scrivener. Try Scrivener. It’s the best and way cheaper (no subscription, no “AI” bullshit). You can find it here: Scrivener - Literature & Latte

2 Likes

I have Scrivener 3.x for Windows.
I was just thinking that the AI might help me along.

That’s like running a Marathon on a bicycle.

3 Likes

OK, I hear you. I have run many marathons and ultramarathon, up to 50 miles. I never used a bicycle.
I will save my $$ and kick my own brain into high for NANOWRIMO.

Thanks
Frank

1 Like

At the risk of sounding like I’m piling on
 (and I’ve seen you’ve said you’re planning on saving your money at this point).

Resist tools that “do for you”. Taking your idea seeds and growing paragraphs out of thin air. All those reddit posts that get fed into digital voice readers and posted to YouTube do this, and its turns a 90 second story into a 45 minute waste of time. And this was borne from trying to game YouTube’s ad revenue system that rewards longer duration viewings.

The ‘write for you’ sort of generative AI is what most writers, editors, and readers have issue with. Tools that examine and offer insights are less controversial, but often source their wisdom by stealing scraping untold millions of words of human effort without applying even credit to whom they patterns their model after. So they are not free of controversy either.

I do like to remind people that if they have ever used any form of spelling or grammar checker, they have used an AI agent, so it’s not evil inherently, but it is a tool that can be abused. Understanding your tools is the first step up from apprenticeship to mastery.

A last little tidbit
 NaNoWriMo is mostly about building a daily writing habit and writing to deadline, not about producing a fully complete draft ready for release by 11:59pm on 30 Novemeber. Don’t listen to your inner editor, and just blast out all the words that occur to you on the topic. Clean it up in January.

4 Likes

I’ve posted this link before, but it sums up my feelings about using AI to generate “art” fairly well: Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art | The New Yorker

The whole point of writing (or any other form of art) is that you, the author, have something to say. I, as a reader, am potentially interested in your experience as another human being. That is, communication between humans is the goal.

The whole premise of ChatGPT and tools like it is that “fast” is better than “good,” that “average” is better than “unique.” In some contexts – corporate white papers, say – that might actually be true. But it’s not art. Worse, accepting the idea that “AI might help me along” is a denial of your own voice and uniqueness. However flawed or undeveloped it may be, your writing is yours. Don’t surrender your agency before you’ve even started.

6 Likes

I wholeheartedly endorse @kewms’ post, above.

I am also worried that GenZ will have their creative abilities permanently eroded by their reliance on AI technologies, and that “GenAI” (by which I confusingly mean the successors to GenZ that are born into an AI-prevalent world, rather than the technology of generative AI) will never develop them.

I am beginning to witness this firsthand in my day job, with GenZ team members trusting AI implicitly to draw conclusions and make prioritisations from materials they’ve not even opened, let alone read or attempted to understand(1) and it’s noticeable that by having not done the work they would have historically done, their ability to critically analysis and assess things across the board has weakened.

It is possible that one day AI will be “creative” enough to either compete with human generated art, or at least be indistinguishable to an undiscerning populous. I’m reminded of something Scott Adams once said about his Dilbert cartoon (and I’m paraphrasing)
 “I’ve learnt two things over the course of my career: firstly, that there is a world of difference in quality between my best published work and my worst published work, and secondly, that the audience can’t tell the difference.”

I’m a keen photographer, and I remember when digital cameras first came out. They were impressive tech, but ultimately produced terrible quality pictures compared to even the cheapest film camera. As such they were only really used by people passionate and evangelical about the tech, while the world stayed with film
 until the tech reached the point when that wasn’t true any more and now we live in a world where using film is highly unusual, we are drowning in a sea of pictures from everyone and everywhere, and the photographer has less to do with the output than ever.

AI strikes me as currently in that early digital camera space of maturity, but “society” is adopting it anyway. The future of the equivalent of film in this metaphor (ie, human creativity) doesn’t look good, I’m afraid.


(1) - I’ve also started to see some GenZ individuals treat AI produced outputs as a trusted reliable source to verify human produced hypotheses instead of the other way round.

2 Likes

I was drafting a reply when George Monbiot saved me the effort.

1 Like

That is exactly how I feel. It’s only trying to work out things myself that keeps my brain alive.

:slight_smile:
Mark

While I wholeheartedly agree, it’s becoming increasingly likely that those that don’t use AI will face huge barriers to entry.

Why would a publisher risk an unknown, untested, slow, expensive human author when they can get an established AI model, proven to appeal to mass readership, to quickly generate a story based on a prompt and then attributed ghostwriter style to [insert name of currently popular celebrity here]?

Because such an “AI” model doesn’t exist? (yet)

I thought it was called James Patterson.

1 Like

The professional photographers I follow would strongly disagree with that statement.

It’s easier to make a technically competent photograph now than it has ever been. But when the world is drowning in technically competent but mediocre photography, that’s exactly when truly good photography stands out.

2 Likes

I’m sure they would. But I’d be wary of trusting anyone whose livelihood depends on a certain position to have an independent view on that position.

I have sat through some tech demonstrations today that show that we really aren’t very far away. If the industry was so inclined, it could exist in the next 6 months. If the industry doesn’t care to develop it, it may exist anyway in 12-24.

Unlikely. Unless they manage to build a machine that walks out and lives life, gets sick, marries, loses friends, loves, gets rejected, smells gras, works three jobs and is angry about grocery prices, all the good stuff – well. No.

Because the technology industry’s predictions are famously accurate.

Back in 2017 or so, an analyst asked me what I thought of the idea that self-driving cars would not just exist, but dominate the market by 2021. I laughed at her.

They don’t need to. They just need to copy things written by people who’ve done that.

For the record, I don’t think such outputs would be good; just that they could be good enough for an undiscerning audience. You know, the audience that thinks Jake Paul is a boxer.

As accurate as anyone’s, I’d guess! :slight_smile:

Fast food is a huge business. But it also makes people sick if they consume it constantly.

I agree. Doesn’t stop ‘em eating it though.