Nick Cave’s direct response is verbatim on the original generated text page [0]. It’s worth a read. Stronger: read that, not the linked guardian article. He’s

Nick Cave’s direct response is verbatim on the original generated text page [0]. It’s worth a read. Stronger: read that, not the linked guardian article. He’s a fabulous wielder of words. Placed next to the generated text, his rebuttal lays bare the beige blandness of chatgpt output. What’s truly threatened are authors of articles like the linked guardian one. That’s the irony of it. These cut, paste, and bookend articles that hacks churn out over coffee at the start of the work day. They dilute rather than focus the conversation. That’s what chatgpt can replicate with aplomb. Not that we’ll be the better for it since there are all too many of them already. I hope Nick works on a song about the “algorithmic awe”, the “replication as travesty”, the “grotesque mockery” that generative text supports. Its superficial output threatens the visible breakthrough of genuine new human creative talent above the inevitable impending noise of vanilla generated music and lyrics. [0] https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/ https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/