Both stories sent back with an accusation of using ChatGPT?!

[MillieDynamite]

Wait, there is “La madre que te parió.” It means “the mother who gave birth to you!” and is one of the top three cruse phrases. It's like, you Bastard!

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Where I am concerned, using AI to write anything is comparable to using your brother to have sex for you. He might get similar results to you, but where is the enjoyment for you in doing so?

Where is the joy in developing interesting characters of your own making? Where is the passion in devising a plot that moves you and your readers? Where is the reward for researching details that make your story pop? Where is the pride of accomplishment?

I am not totally opposed to the use of AI as a tool. I use spell and grammar-checking tools that are based on AI. I just feel genuinely sorry for those who feel the need to use it for creative purposes of any sort.

 

[MetaBob]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernar...ted-by-chatgpt-and-other-ais/?sh=5c276c84710b

All of today's detection technology will be obsolete tomorrow, as AIs get better and better at emulating human writing. Long term, only the very best writing will be from humans; anything less will be easily generated by a cheap AI. And by "long term", I mean "by the end of this decade."

 

[Bamagan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernar...ted-by-chatgpt-and-other-ais/?sh=5c276c84710b

All of today's detection technology will be obsolete tomorrow, as AIs get better and better at emulating human writing. Long term, only the very best writing will be from humans; anything less will be easily generated by a cheap AI. And by "long term", I mean "by the end of this decade."

To be candid, it kind of feels like a lot of movies are made by ai already. Identify a formula and repeat until it wears itself out. I suppose any degree of groupthink in the creative process is technically artificial!

 

[jaF0]

^^^^ A big part of what the Writer's strike is all about.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I can't help but believe AI, in the end, will be a bad thing. Think Person of interest, minus the benevolent ASI and only having the evil one. No Machine, only Samaritan, say it isn't so. I know, for now, they only make pictures and text, but give them the ability, and they'll take over.

 

[Bamagan]

I don't worry much about ai taking over. By its nature it is inherently backwards facing, dependent on precedent, and therefore poorly fitted to dealing with novel situations. People generally suck at that, too, I suppose. We might be able to create an ai that kills us all, assuming we don't beat it to the punch, but I doubt one would be effective at running the show.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The issue with AI is if you give it a survival instinct, the thing will know who has control of the off switch. Watch the Forbin Project, or better, read the book. In Person of Interest, the Machine had hundreds of computers running. Sumaritain had thousands spread around the world. If you give them control of your national security, and the ability to mesh with other computers on the grid, it isn't inconceivable they might take over. To them, we would be the greatest threat to them, and we know we are the greatest threat to ourselves minus them.

There is a line in the series, "Only a few hundred people cause all the problems in the world. Eliminate them before they can, and the rest of us are safe."

The problem is a few dozen others would take their place and then a few dozen more. And the ASI would have to act again and again.

I think that is the basis of the Mission Impossible movie.

 

[Bramblethorn]

To be candid, it kind of feels like a lot of movies are made by ai already. Identify a formula and repeat until it wears itself out.

To be fair, that applies equally to a lot of stories here, even before AI entered the picture.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

To be fair, that applies equally to a lot of stories here, even before AI entered the picture.

Well, bad writing is bad writing we don't need AI for that.

 

[MillieDynamite]

That was Fox Studios, Disney only acquired it after all the prequels were done. Jar-Jar is all Lucas.

Disney has been run by AI for a few decades….how else do you explain Jar-jar

 

[alohadave]

The issue with AI is if you give it a survival instinct, the thing will know who has control of the off switch. Watch the Forbin Project, or better, read the book. In Person of Interest, the Machine had hundreds of computers running. Sumaritain had thousands spread around the world. If you give them control of your national security, and the ability to mesh with other computers on the grid, it isn't inconceivable they might take over. To them, we would be the greatest threat to them, and we know we are the greatest threat to ourselves minus them.

There is a line in the series, "Only a few hundred people cause all the problems in the world. Eliminate them before they can, and the rest of us are safe."

The problem is a few dozen others would take their place and then a few dozen more. And the ASI would have to act again and again.

I think that is the basis of the Mission Impossible movie.

AI is not actually intelligent. It's not conscious. It's not self-aware. It's not a digital lifeform.

The AI that we have are mostly statistical calculators. They are really good at certain types of math. They are not going to take over the world.

The thing that people miss about AI is that they need to be trained, and when training, garbage in=garbage out. Assuming that a human-level artificial was created, you would need to train it to be what you wanted it to be.

I recommend that you read "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" by Ted Chiang. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41160292-exhalation It's fiction, but it's a pretty realistic depiction of what training an actual synthetic intelligence would be like. (honestly, read the whole book, it's an excellent anthology of his stories).

 

[MetaBob]

The issue with AI is if you give it a survival instinct, the thing will know who has control of the off switch. Watch the Forbin Project, or better, read the book. In Person of Interest, the Machine had hundreds of computers running. Sumaritain had thousands spread around the world. If you give them control of your national security, and the ability to mesh with other computers on the grid, it isn't inconceivable they might take over. To them, we would be the greatest threat to them...

That, too, but it's further off.

As someone who has developed an AI engine from scratch, I probably have more insight into the process than most. Right now, AI is a tool. The kinds of AIs available to consumers are not yet developed to the point where they can do much more than cause a writers' strike (or an artists' strike). It's the ones being developed largely in secret, by huge and well-funded entities like mega-corporations and governments that are the ones to really worry about.

It's best for most people to not worry, I think, because they won't be able to do much about it anyway. Expect it to happen, plan for it to happen, and trust that these huge and well-funded entities have the sense to insulate decision-making (not even self-aware yet) AIs from systems that could cause large-scale real-world harm. No legislative fix is possible, at least not for long.

Here's a fun example of how AI can corrupt even a well-meaning attempt to help writers with their craft:
https://blog.shaxpir.com/taking-down-prosecraft-io-37e189797121

Any more AI development I might do in future will be to ward off an AI takeover rather than to facilitate it. But that course, too, is fraught with peril.

 

[Bamagan]

The issue with AI is if you give it a survival instinct, the thing will know who has control of the off switch. Watch the Forbin Project, or better, read the book. In Person of Interest, the Machine had hundreds of computers running. Sumaritain had thousands spread around the world. If you give them control of your national security, and the ability to mesh with other computers on the grid, it isn't inconceivable they might take over. To them, we would be the greatest threat to them, and we know we are the greatest threat to ourselves minus them.

There is a line in the series, "Only a few hundred people cause all the problems in the world. Eliminate them before they can, and the rest of us are safe."

The problem is a few dozen others would take their place and the a few dozen more. And the ASI would have to act again and again.

I fundamentally disagree with the few hundred part, it strikes me as people trying to downplay their own faults. But whatever, certainly some people cause a lot more than others, so there's some validity. But an ai that has survival instinct won't necessarily see us a threat, and survival instinct is not the same as self awareness or the ability to formulate long range plans for survival. Bacteria react to their environment to improve their survival odds. Chances are that an ai acting instinctively would strive to be the most useful and, in this case, natural sounding with writing. That may be bad news for writers.... and I see now I had a weird double post and was beaten to the punch, haha!

 

[butters]

now wouldn't it be ironic if the admin had decided to use an AI programme to read through and discard any stories it considered partially/mostly AI amalgamations?

 

[Bamagan]

Well, bad writing is bad writing we don't need AI for that.

Unless we want a lot of it really fast!

 

[MillieDynamite]

No, it was all Lucas. Just like Howard the Duck, he pulled Jar-Jar out of his ass.

Wups….my bad…still maintain that AI created jar jar….

What we have now isn't true intelligence, but that is a goal for some geeks in the field. I'll check out the stories.

AI is not actually intelligent. It's not conscious. It's not self-aware. It's not a digital lifeform.

The AI that we have are mostly statistical calculators. They are really good at certain types of math. They are not going to take over the world.

The thing that people miss about AI is that they need to be trained, and when training, garbage in=garbage out. Assuming that a human-level artificial was created, you would need to train it to be what you wanted it to be.

I recommend that you read "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" by Ted Chiang. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41160292-exhalation It's fiction, but it's a pretty realistic depiction of what training an actual synthetic intelligence would be like. (honestly, read the whole book, it's an excellent anthology of his stories).

We can certainly hope for the best, plan for the worst, and keep some of our shit offline.

That, too, but it's further off.

As someone who has developed an AI engine from scratch, I probably have more insight into the process than most. Right now, AI is a tool. The kinds of AIs available to consumers are not yet developed to the point where they can do much more than cause a writers' strike (or an artists' strike). It's the ones being developed largely in secret, by huge and well-funded entities like mega-corporations and governments that are the ones to really worry about.

It's best for most people to not worry, I think, because they won't be able to do much about it anyway. Expect it to happen, plan for it to happen, and trust that these huge and well-funded entities have the sense to insulate decision-making (not even self-aware yet) AIs from systems that could cause large-scale real-world harm. No legislative fix is possible, at least not for long.

Here's a fun example of how AI can corrupt even a well-meaning attempt to help writers with their craft:
https://blog.shaxpir.com/taking-down-prosecraft-io-37e189797121

Any more AI development I might do in future will be to ward off an AI takeover rather than to facilitate it. But that course, too, is fraught with peril.

It was a line from the show Person of Interest by an evil human agent of Samaritan, Mr. Greer, a quite flawed former MI6 operative. An assassin looking for a perfect world controlled by logic and reason. His means, however, were quite unreasonable.

I fundamentally disagree with the few hundred part, it strikes me as people trying to downplay their own faults. But whatever, certainly some people cause a lot more than others, so there's some validity. But an ai that has survival instinct won't necessarily see us a threat, and survival instinct is not the same as self awareness or the ability to formulate long range plans for survival. Bacteria react to their environment to improve their survival odds. Chances are that an ai acting instinctively would strive to be the most useful and, in this case, natural sounding with writing. That may be bad news for writers.... and I see now I had a weird double post and was beaten to the punch, haha!

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Unless we want a lot of it really fast!

But I write badly at my own pace.

 

[MillieDynamite]

You certainly do!

But I write badly at my own pace.

 

[Bamagan]

But I write badly at my own pace.

We don't have time to wait! We need at least 140 new shades of gray by this weekend or we'll lose the (fake name) account!

 

[MillieDynamite]

Whether it's AI, ASI, or just vigilantism, killing off people we think, believe, or know are troublemakers isn't the right thing. I find the possibility of AI fascinating. But for every Machine or Data, we have three times as many examples of how wrong things can go.

The Forbin Project movie was based on the Colossus, renamed Colossus, the Forbin Project, after the release of the movie. The book tells the story of a supercomputer that is built to run the defense systems for the free world. When Colossus, our machine, discovers there is a counterpart in Russian, it demands to be connected to that machine. The Russian counterpart Guardian also intuits the existence of Colossus.

They cause several accidents in their own counties to gain connection. Once it is gained, well, it isn't a good thing.

The combined machines send a message to humanity that they will live in the shade, not in the shadow of their masters.

I fundamentally disagree with the few hundred part, it strikes me as people trying to downplay their own faults. But whatever, certainly some people cause a lot more than others, so there's some validity. But an ai that has survival instinct won't necessarily see us a threat, and survival instinct is not the same as self awareness or the ability to formulate long range plans for survival. Bacteria react to their environment to improve their survival odds. Chances are that an ai acting instinctively would strive to be the most useful and, in this case, natural sounding with writing. That may be bad news for writers.... and I see now I had a weird double post and was beaten to the punch, haha!

 

[Bamagan]

Whether it's AI, ASI, or just vigilantism, killing off people we think, believe, or know are troublemakers isn't the right thing. I find the possibility of AI fascinating. But for every Machine or Data, we have three times as many examples of how wrong things can go.

We may have to agree to disagree, but my argument is that we have basically zero actual examples of how humans and other intelligences would get along. There are many, many depictions in media, both popular and unpopular, of how those people think things would go, but so far those are all speculation, and not credible examples of anything that actually has or likely would happen. There's a wide spectrum so there's a good chance somebody has correctly prophesied the future, but we don't know who yet.
That being said, people's exhibited inability to get along even with other people does not bode especially well for any attempts to get along with an AI or an alien civilization. So I certainly understand taking a dim view of our prospects in that sense. But when we're talking about literary source material, that always skews toward conflict, because that's what generally makes for more compelling reading.

 

[MillieDynamite]

But if the government develops it, you'll know nothing about it until is too late. Watson's a fun little program. Also, there is Ameca, but when asked if it would hurt us, it said, "I'm not sure why you would think that. My creator has been nothing but kind to me and I am very happy with my current situation." Ameca was developed by UK-based Engineered Arts and is often described as the world's most advanced humanoid robot. What about when it isn't happy?

We may have to agree to disagree, but my argument is that we have basically zero actual examples of how humans and other intelligences would get along. There are many, many depictions in media, both popular and unpopular, of how those people think things would go, but so far those are all speculation, and not credible examples of anything that actually has or likely would happen. There's a wide spectrum so there's a good chance somebody has correctly prophesied the future, but we don't know who yet.
That being said, people's exhibited inability to get along even with other people does not bode especially well for any attempts to get along with an AI or an alien civilization. So I certainly understand taking a dim view of our prospects in that sense. But when we're talking about literary source material, that always skews toward conflict, because that's what generally makes for more compelling reading.

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

Now I want to read some AI written porn just to see how bad or good it is.


Who is better in bed the woman thought, my husband with his one 10 inch dick, or my lover with his five 2 inch dicks. <<< I wish I knew how this AI writing worked so I could see what the computer outputs.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Watch Saturn 5 sometime. Robot helps man and woman. The robot rapes woman with a metal spinning cock. Robot tries to kill man.

Now I want to read some AI written porn just to see how bad or good it is.


Who is better in bed the woman thought, my husband with his one 10 inch dick, or my lover with his five 2 inch dicks. <<< I wish I knew how this AI writing worked so I could see what the computer outputs.