I recently received an email from Harrison at Play Submissions Helper. He approaches A.I. in the same way I seem to.
I feel that the heart of writing for the theatre comes from the human heart — and soul. It cannot be duplicated by a non-sentient, non-feeling, tool.
The very nature of A.I. is to sample the writing of others and emulate it. So is that truly “intelligent” or just “artificial?”
As a writer of Book, Music and Lyrics for musicals, I feel that my voice should be heard — not Eugene O’Neill’s or Neil Simon’s, as much as I like them and their work. I want to tell my stories my way. A.I. cannot help me do that. I don’t want to ‘own’ a work of vital theatricality that doesn’t represent my thought and the thought of my collaborators. (A.I. is anything but collaborative, more so, it is plagiaristic!)
However, I do see a use for it in writing scripts and lyrics. The re-write. With careful parameters set in the instructions for your particular A.I. project, you could ask it to make suggestions (instead of the out-right re-writing of your project.) These suggestions make A.I. a collaborator, and you have the authority to accept what you and your other collaborators deem right and pertinent, and reject those that do not sound like you.
Alongside that, you can ask A.I. to summarize your story in detail. Then read the summary to see if it represents what you and your writing team feel you have written; still leaving you in control. A.I. then merely becomes a collaborator/advisor, although in a very minor way.
That, for me, is the way to use A.I.
There are many publishers these days who ask this question on their submissions form: Have you used A.I to create any part of your work?
Depending on your answer, they may reject your submission out of hand, or view it with an eye that will be even more critical than normal.
Be Smart — Intelligent — about the use of A.I.
— C. Michael Perry