3 ms·

what makes ChatGPT's science fiction non genuine? human authors get ideas from other human others, and ChatGPT gets ideas from human authors, and maybe even fro

what makes ChatGPT's science fiction non genuine? human authors get ideas from other human others, and ChatGPT gets ideas from human authors, and maybe even from itself

indymike 4y ago
ChatGPT output may not be copyright eligible, which erodes the underpinnings of the publishing industry.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
1) It takes time to review each submission and further resources to publish any that are accepted. 2) The volume of submissions has grown massively because spammers are using LLMs to generate spam submissions in the hope of getting paid. 3) The current generation of LLMs are not particularly good at generating quality literature on their own, so this massive deluge of submissions is mostly garbage.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Also I would go to venture to that what GPT produces passes the initial scan. That is mostly spelled and grammatically correct. I think those sort of submissions are common enough previously, but relatively fast to reject with "needs edit". On other hand GPT might technically be good enough. But there isn't any actual substance. The reason why we read literature. This is varying bar, but still it does exist.
derefr 4y ago
ChatGPT generates cargo-cult fiction. It is imitating the low-level structure of prose, but its model can't (currently) stretch to synthesize the high-level structure of a narrative. We currently don't have any machine-level filter that would identify whether or not a piece of prose is actually a coherent work of narrative fiction or not. And annoyingly, if we did, AFAIK we'd also have everything we needed to train an AI (specifically, a GAN) to generate narrative fiction. So we're going to be dealing with this right up until the point where it doesn't matter any more, rather than being able to do any kind of quick hack to banish it "early."
- saalweachter 4y ago
  I mean, once you can generate the content -- good content -- cheaply enough, no one will pay for it.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  The interesting thing is that there exist techniques to generate coherent and even interesting stories, that do not rely on copying large amounts of examples thereof: https://thegradient.pub/an-introduction-to-ai-story-generation/ https://thegradient.pub/an-introduction-to-ai-story-generati... Unfortunately those are a) virtually unknown outside academic circles and b) about to die a death. The latter, the death, they're about to die it because their space is now being taken over by a much more prolific technology that generates low-grade bullshit cheaply. Life, innit. It goes in circles.
  - Xelynega 4y ago
    Thats part of my concern with all the money being dumped into openAI et al after they productive their generative models. If all the money is in generative models that give "good looking" results, who is going to spend money investing in the techniques that don't produce as "good looking" results right now but who have a potential beyond recombining it's training data?
pavon 4y ago
It has nothing to do with it being genuine or not. The number of submissions have increased by 100x and nearly all of it is crap, but crap that can't be easily filtered by automated tools. The bots aren't making stories that people want to read, but they are drowning out all the stories that people do. The philosophical and pragmatic implications of AI being able to replace people are interesting, but that isn't what this is - it's just spam by low-effort grifters.
- mojoe 4y ago
  thanks, this is a perfect encapsulation of what's happening, I'm surprised there are so many people here who don't understand the core issue here.
  - vba616 4y ago
    >there are so many people here who don't understand the core issue here. Sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from people who don't understand the core issue here. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever...
prepend 4y ago
It’s not about genuine, it’s about quality. The chatgpt stories are poor and there’s tons of them to go through. If the stories were great, or even if .001% were great, then I think the magazine would be happy as they’d be able to put out more great stories.
billjings 4y ago
Human authors do get ideas from existing material, and they do imitate existing work, but ChatGPT does not actually have any ideas. It is technically incapable of understanding. It generates the appearance of ideas, but that appearance is a reproduction of word relationships from its source materials.
nkrisc 4y ago
It’s not an issue of “genuine”, it’s just crap. But to determine it’s crap someone needs to read it and that’s not scalable when you can generate hundreds of crappy submissions in an instant.

what makes ChatGPT's science fiction non genuine? human authors get ideas from other human others, and ChatGPT gets ideas from human authors, and maybe even from itself

indymike 4y ago

ChatGPT output may not be copyright eligible, which erodes the underpinnings of the publishing industry.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

1) It takes time to review each submission and further resources to publish any that are accepted. 2) The volume of submissions has grown massively because spammers are using LLMs to generate spam submissions in the hope of getting paid. 3) The current generation of LLMs are not particularly good at generating quality literature on their own, so this massive deluge of submissions is mostly garbage.

Ekaros 4y ago
Also I would go to venture to that what GPT produces passes the initial scan. That is mostly spelled and grammatically correct. I think those sort of submissions are common enough previously, but relatively fast to reject with "needs edit". On other hand GPT might technically be good enough. But there isn't any actual substance. The reason why we read literature. This is varying bar, but still it does exist.

derefr 4y ago

ChatGPT generates cargo-cult fiction. It is imitating the low-level structure of prose, but its model can't (currently) stretch to synthesize the high-level structure of a narrative. We currently don't have any machine-level filter that would identify whether or not a piece of prose is actually a coherent work of narrative fiction or not. And annoyingly, if we did, AFAIK we'd also have everything we needed to train an AI (specifically, a GAN) to generate narrative fiction. So we're going to be dealing with this right up until the point where it doesn't matter any more, rather than being able to do any kind of quick hack to banish it "early."

saalweachter 4y ago
I mean, once you can generate the content -- good content -- cheaply enough, no one will pay for it.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
The interesting thing is that there exist techniques to generate coherent and even interesting stories, that do not rely on copying large amounts of examples thereof: https://thegradient.pub/an-introduction-to-ai-story-generation/ https://thegradient.pub/an-introduction-to-ai-story-generati... Unfortunately those are a) virtually unknown outside academic circles and b) about to die a death. The latter, the death, they're about to die it because their space is now being taken over by a much more prolific technology that generates low-grade bullshit cheaply. Life, innit. It goes in circles.
- Xelynega 4y ago
  Thats part of my concern with all the money being dumped into openAI et al after they productive their generative models. If all the money is in generative models that give "good looking" results, who is going to spend money investing in the techniques that don't produce as "good looking" results right now but who have a potential beyond recombining it's training data?

pavon 4y ago

It has nothing to do with it being genuine or not. The number of submissions have increased by 100x and nearly all of it is crap, but crap that can't be easily filtered by automated tools. The bots aren't making stories that people want to read, but they are drowning out all the stories that people do. The philosophical and pragmatic implications of AI being able to replace people are interesting, but that isn't what this is - it's just spam by low-effort grifters.

mojoe 4y ago
thanks, this is a perfect encapsulation of what's happening, I'm surprised there are so many people here who don't understand the core issue here.
- vba616 4y ago
  >there are so many people here who don't understand the core issue here. Sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from people who don't understand the core issue here. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever...

prepend 4y ago

It’s not about genuine, it’s about quality. The chatgpt stories are poor and there’s tons of them to go through. If the stories were great, or even if .001% were great, then I think the magazine would be happy as they’d be able to put out more great stories.

billjings 4y ago

Human authors do get ideas from existing material, and they do imitate existing work, but ChatGPT does not actually have any ideas. It is technically incapable of understanding. It generates the appearance of ideas, but that appearance is a reproduction of word relationships from its source materials.

nkrisc 4y ago

It’s not an issue of “genuine”, it’s just crap. But to determine it’s crap someone needs to read it and that’s not scalable when you can generate hundreds of crappy submissions in an instant.