3 ms·

"The greatest potential loss in our relations to machines is not runaway GDP or disinformation, but rather the existential right to enjoy the surprise and uniqu

by Jun8 7y ago

"The greatest potential loss in our relations to machines is not runaway GDP or disinformation, but rather the existential right to enjoy the surprise and uniqueness of human effort." This is similar to the "Artist's Lament" described eloquently by Feynman (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184384-i-have-a-friend-who-s-an-artist-and-has-sometimes https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184384-i-have-a-friend-who-...). Actually, it would be very interesting to read fiction created by an AI that illustrates what it means to be a machine, similar to how we are recommended to read works written by people from other cultures. Note that the AI does not do this: as the article states it's trained on "more than 40 gigabytes of online writing", so it's just holding a mirror to what humans have written with no insight into "machine-ness". This is is like picking up a Chinese writer and finding out that it's a story about the Midwest, written in the style of American storytellers. It may be even called cultural appropriation (see different writer's viewpoints on cultural appropriation: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/01/novelists-cultural-appropriation-literature-lionel-shriver https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/01/novelists-cult... and Zadie Smith's eloquent push bak against it: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/24/zadie-smith-in-defense-of-fiction/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/24/zadie-smith-in-d...). OTOH, if the AI's fiction is truly authentic we may not be able to understand it a la Wittgenstein's lion (https://wittgensteinforum.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/wittgenstein-if-a-lion-could-speak-we-could-not-understand-him-pi-p223/ https://wittgensteinforum.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/wittgenst...) because it will be far removed from human experience. Why do we read fiction, though? If the answer is for it to be "an axe for the frozen sea within us" (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/237620-i-think-we-ought-to-read-only-the-kind-of https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/237620-i-think-we-ought-to-...) then we don't care who generates it: if an AI has created a story that moves you, so be it.

lonelappde 7y ago
Lem's Solaris is (among other things) a literary take on Wittgenstein's lion, might be an easier and more fun read. (I hear the George Clooney vehicle movie is actually good too, but different from the book.) Regarding your Chinese Midwesterner lit, we do have the huge genre of Serge Leone and the Italian "spaghetti westerns" (and spaghetti was invented in China!) Anyway, I don't want an AI remixing literary to make derivative literature. I want AI remixing news and culture to find subtle patterns and generating literature about that, which is what many great human writers too.
- Jun8 7y ago
  Excellent example, thanks. I read somewhere that Lem was unhappy with both (by Tarkovsky and Soderbergh) adaptations because they didn't put the if we encounter aliens they will be too alien to communicate idea front and center like he did. I agree with your last point, that would well-suited to criticism, too, maybe even better.

by Jun8 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

Lem's Solaris is (among other things) a literary take on Wittgenstein's lion, might be an easier and more fun read. (I hear the George Clooney vehicle movie is actually good too, but different from the book.) Regarding your Chinese Midwesterner lit, we do have the huge genre of Serge Leone and the Italian "spaghetti westerns" (and spaghetti was invented in China!) Anyway, I don't want an AI remixing literary to make derivative literature. I want AI remixing news and culture to find subtle patterns and generating literature about that, which is what many great human writers too.

Jun8 7y ago
Excellent example, thanks. I read somewhere that Lem was unhappy with both (by Tarkovsky and Soderbergh) adaptations because they didn't put the if we encounter aliens they will be too alien to communicate idea front and center like he did. I agree with your last point, that would well-suited to criticism, too, maybe even better.