Do you REALLY care if AI is a danger to our craft?

[Levorotatory]

The problem with AI is that it is a crutch. People will use it for simple, basic things. They will come to rely on it. And then, when they come to the point that they want to create something 'from the soul' they will find it that much more difficult/virtually impossible, because they used AI for the basics rather than learn to do it for themselves. So then, they will use AI instead. The skill will be lost to create top end products, because the learning experience necessary will have been skipped.

People said that about electronic calculators and arithmetic skills too. Are the people who pull out calculators to multiply things by 10 at a disadvantage when they take university level mathematics courses where calculators are prohibited and they need learn to do arithmetic in their heads while they are learning calculus or linear algebra? Maybe. But at least some of them still pass.

It's like digital photography agains negative or slide film, the art has been removed, HDR, Photoshop, etc. has removed the art of taking a good photo.

Has it? Anyone can crop and adjust brightness and contrast, but not everyone can do it well. There is still skill involved in effectively using the range of tools image editing software to make a photograph look better. Also, a lot of traditional photography was just taking lots of pictures and selecting the good ones. Digital photography just made that technique cheaper and more accessible.

Au contraire... if you know your grammar, you can tell whether it has correctly corrected. Of course, in that case, you have no need of it. Otherwise, you are taking it on trust.

You can know grammar and still miss errors. Reading what you intended to write rather than what you actually wrote is common. Grammar checking can catch those errors.

 

[spank_me_please]

The genesis of the ideas for AI is what you ask it. You have to provide it with the parameters, what you want the story to be about etc.

No, the genesis for AI's output is your prompt + PLUS the model. The model is a massive set of weights derived from the training data, which is the works of other humans.

 

[Lifestyle66]

This example doesn't work because typewriters and whiteboards are simply means to record words. The genesis of ideas and thoughts come from those using these tools.

False equivalency isn't a great defense for using AI.

I disagree.

There are those who would never have picked up a quill pen to put their thoughts to paper. But given a typewriter, they can produce something to share.

There are people today trying to shape their own stories with AIs assisting them, who would otherwise not know how to get started putting their thoughts to paper.

In my opinion, AI's do not (yet) create anything. They are still directed by humans to varying degrees to generate their stories.

EDIT: As for the argument that AIs use the weight of the work done by other humans, ... realistically EVERY HUMAN does the same! Your ideas are the collective experiences you've accumulated from reading the works of others.

 

[Baztrachian]

I'm going to be pessimistic and say that within ten years you'll be able to go to your very own instance of AI and order up movies on demand that tell a story you want to see and the story will be generated on the fly with fictional actors and actresses. Thrillers, horror movies, porn, all on demand.

Written novel generation will take place sooner.

My sense of the industry is that we'll see this happen by 2030.

We already have hit music by AI:

The backstory...

 

[spank_me_please]

I disagree.

There are those who would never have picked up a quill pen to put their thoughts to paper. But given a typewriter, they can produce something to share.

There are people today trying to shape their own stories with AIs assisting them, who would otherwise not know how to get started putting their thoughts to paper.

In my opinion, AI's do not (yet) create anything. They are still directed by humans to varying degrees to generate their stories.

A pen, typewriter, or computer keyboard, or even voice to text is just the means of recording thought, the writer still thinks up every word in their head.

Gen AI is more than just a means of recording thoughts into words. I could use a thesaurus to find new words I wouldn't otherwise know, so I don't think I need to produce 100% of the words of a given body of text for it to be mine, but gen AI feels intuitively different to me...I can't articulate exactly why, maybe it feels like AI is carrying some of the cognitive load?

 

[Nynah]

There are those who would never have picked up a quill pen to put their thoughts to paper. But given a typewriter, they can produce something to share.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here other than people have different preferences for how they record their own original thoughts onto a medium.

There are people today trying to shape their own stories with AIs assisting them, who would otherwise not know how to get started putting their thoughts to paper.

As an accessibility advocate, it chafes me that AI is being framed as an accessibility tool. Spell checkers and grammar tools are part of accessibility. Using AI to "create" chunks of words for you is laziness and theft.

In my opinion, AI's do not (yet) create anything.

I agree. They steal.

 

[HordHolm]

You can know grammar and still miss errors. Reading what you intended to write rather than what you actually wrote is common. Grammar checking can catch those errors.

Grammar checkers are not infallible. I have caught the Word grammar checker in errors before now.

 

[spank_me_please]

EDIT: As for the argument that AIs use the weight of the work done by other humans, ... realistically EVERY HUMAN does the same! Your ideas are the collective experiences you've accumulated from reading the works of others.

I think this is the most valid defense of gen AI.

My motivation for reading is to learn what other humans think and feel about the world, which sure, is the product of their collective experiences fed through their neural network of a brain, but at least it's presented by a (hopefully) unique perspective on the human condition.

Until we're ready to call gen AI human, or conscious, what motivation do I have to read generated text?

 

[Lifestyle66]

I think this is the most valid defense of gen AI.

My motivation for reading is to learn what other humans think and feel about the world, which sure, is the product of their collective experiences fed through their neural network of a brain, but at least it's presented by a (hopefully) unique perspective on the human condition.

Until we're ready to call gen AI human, or conscious, what motivation do I have to read generated text?

Now I can agree with you on that point: Not wanting to read something created entirely by a machine.

Why would I want to know what a machine thinks? Why should I care what a machine thinks about any subject. Heck, that would be like me reading something written by ... someone who doesn't think as I do. EDIT: Note my signature line of "stories from my warped mind."

That's me being sarcastic. But we should look ahead to a point when an AI might compile a better and possibly more comprehensive understanding of the collected works of the "masters of the written word."

 

[spank_me_please]

Ethics and the human condition aside, I also have pragmatic concerns about it.

Once AI is sufficiently capable and adopted, we will be increasingly reliant. Someone else mentioned electronic calculators doing arithmetic for us. Take that analogy further, and AI is doing our *thinking* for us, not just procedural computation (which is what arithmetic essentially is).

The Zuckerburg, Musk, and Altmans of the world control AI without much transparency or accountability. Does anyone really want their thoughts and knowledge controlled so much by billionaire oligarchs?

We already live in a world where the flow of information can be easily manipulated by search engines, why give up even more? It's insane to me.

People complain about the current economic model of "you'll own nothing and you'll like it", where media can just be wiped from a streaming service. It's not that far fetched that our thoughts will be similarly doled out to us behind paywalls.

 

[TheDok]

Interesting point.

But if you write a very good original story in your native language, how much automation can you use when looking for translations to another language to remain acceptable?

I want talking about translation. I was talking about an original story I might try to write in my second or third languages. The day AI can translate accurately and preserving nuance , from Persian or Arabic for example they wil have achieved the truly impossible because they will have translated concepts almost impossible for a no native speaker to understand. Those people who have lived another language will know it may reflect cultural concepts that are unique to that culture

 

[Kelliezgirl]

So it can go steal from works created by actual humans? Pass. I'd rather take the prompt and do what I can with my own imagination than use a plagiarism machine.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

 

[spank_me_please]

Now I can agree with you on that point: Not wanting to read something created entirely by a machine.

Why would I want to know what a machine thinks? Why should I care what a machine thinks about any subject. Heck, that would be like me reading something written by ... someone who doesn't think as I do. EDIT: Note my signature line of "stories from my warped mind."

That's me being sarcastic. But we should look ahead to a point when an AI might compile a better and possibly more comprehensive understanding of the collected works of the "masters of the written word."

"Better" is quite subjective. If my criteria for something to be good is that it presents a novel, or even just mildly entertaining, take on the human condition, then gen AI can never be better.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I want talking about translation. I was talking about an original story I might try to write in my second or third languages. The day AI can translate accurately and preserving nuance , from Persian or Arabic for example they wil have achieved the truly impossible because they will have translated concepts almost impossible for a no native speaker to understand. Those people who have lived another language will know it may reflect cultural concepts that are unique to that culture

But the real "threat" of AIs is that they will someday understand the concepts to create a unique story. And if a machine can understand concepts in one language, I would argue that machines will be better able to understand concepts in multiple languages far better than humans do. After all, the very idea of a machine "thinking" in English or any other human language ignores the fact they are all actually thinking in "ones and zeros".

 

[SmilingLez]

I asked AI this question.

 

[Lifestyle66]

"Better" is quite subjective. If my criteria for something to be good is that it presents a novel, or even just mildly entertaining, take on the human condition, then gen AI can never be better.

Our whole rating system of selecting "stars" when reading each other's stories is subjective. We each have differring thresholds of what we "like" or perceive as better.

 

[Mrswargamer9dash1]

I recall Elon being quite upset that his AI software, when asked if I was a woman, said yes in defiance of his bigotry.
He decided it needed to be corrected.

I find it amusing that while some AI stories seem 'ok', it is funny how they immediately steal off of each other and then you get several versions of the same story. And while the stories are simple and basic, what is comical is that they are stories about humans being harsh to other humans, or insistent on putting humanity on a pedestal.

Regarding an AI being able to be wrong, yes, an error in surgery is serious. But if a human can make 1 error in 100 and an AI only makes 1 error in 1 million, who do you want to trust? Humans are fallible, AIs are just faster and less likely to be fallible.
And here's the chuckle moment. I spelled fallible wrong. I thought it was fallable.

 

[Smuttyandfun]

An 'author' using the pen name Catalina Voss is selling their books on Amazon. Over the last two months alone they have produced over 100 titles. I can't imagine that anyone could be that prolific without using AI.

I guess it's a quick way to make a few bucks without having to do any actual writing.

Just noticed that another 'author' Adriana Steel has produced about a dozen books in the last few days, all for sale on Amazon.

I have a feeling that Amazon is loaded with AI books. It's a pretty easy way to make money, and you can pump them out like crazy since you're not really doing any writing.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

My thoughts on AI

Well, until an AI can show me how to make [redacted] ...

Why did you reference that specific event?

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I recall [redacted] ..

You're telling us an awful lot about yourself.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Live footage of @onehitwanda fighting dangerous AI:

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's like digital photography agains negative or slide film, the art has been removed, HDR, Photoshop, etc. has removed the art of taking a good photo. AI is the same, makes people look good with no ability. Rant over xx

My SO is a good amateur photographer, as in prize-winning. He’d disagree with you.

 

[poppypopper]

My SO is a good amateur photographer, as in prize-winning. He’d disagree with you.

I think many would but the art is gone, a slide or negative film with a real SLR... when processed and you have a result is so good, the exposure, the depth of field, the light, the framing, ther can be no manipulation, its a 'real' picture.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think many would but the art is gone, a slide or negative film with a real SLR... when processed and you have a result is so good, the exposure, the depth of field, the light, the framing, ther can be no manipulation, its a 'real' picture.

That’s all technology, not art. The art is no more in silver halide than in CMOS. I think you are thinking of nostalgia. Or so I’m told.

 

[poppypopper]

lol, the art is in the ability to take a real picture without all the technological enhancements, yes I have DSLR, but I still use an SLR with fujifilm.