9 ms·

Why I'm no longer writing stories with AI

74 points by andreyk 3y ago

Jupe 3y ago
Well, that's one individual who has looked past the techno shiny object that is ChatGPT/AI. Unfortunately, if the idea behind Moloch [1] has any credibility (which I think the collection action problem does) someone else will _by the nature of the beast_ continue doing so. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  >Well, that's one individual who has looked past the techno shiny object that is ChatGPT/AI. I think your wording suggests that it isn't actually useful except as a gimmick, whereas it sounds like OP is if anything upset that it is too effective and might someday replace humans.
  - te_chris 3y ago
    I think OP is more disappointed in the base get rich quick hype that’s blown up, after obviously hoping for a bit more of a cultural renaissance.
  - Jupe 3y ago
    I don't think a single individual who chooses to "bow out" of AI-generated content will have any impact in the long run. Apologies if my meaning was confused.
- Baeocystin 3y ago
  Worthwhile posting the counter-essay to Moloch, I think: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everything-else-2/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everyth...
satvikpendem 3y ago
If the story is good, I'll read it, regardless of whether it was written by an AI, a human, or a dog. I don't really see humans as being special, of only wanting to read stories that have the "human touch," whatever that is.
- Freire_Herval 3y ago
  So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose. I envision a future similar to the one in Wall-E and it's not exactly bad so long as the AI actually acts in our interest.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    > So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose Well yeah, one of the fundamental discoveries of nihilism. Our purpose is that which we make ourselves.
    - Freire_Herval 3y ago
      My purpose is to sit while AI takes care of everything and keeps me happy. I want to live in the matrix where I have 30 hot model wives and not know any better. The simulation of course will make me a chad and emperor of the world. That's my purpose.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        This is what I believe we already have with social media , a primitive version of the matrix where you fish for likes and validation, and it’s what VR will create, there may not be a technological singularity but rather, a place where each ego is stroked so intensely that we care less of reality. You can be totally distracted from your real existence for 90% of you life, you won’t need anything else. Just have “20 hot wives” or whatever superficial thing makes you happy.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
MichaelZuo 3y ago
> We’re focusing the power of this new lens on amplifying the rewards flowing to capital holders because, of course we are. I want technology to be an aid to human creativity, not a necessary crutch. I want to make life better, not shove people aside because they are no longer needed to feed the capitalist greed beast. It’s a bit odd to see this from a writer that joined substack 10 months ago. When it was already famous for associating online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on. Which was too big of a change from the more open wordpress/blogspot/etc. norm for someone to claim ignorance. So I don’t quite buy this anti-capitalist rant, the writer even set up a custom domain name with their substack account, so they clearly understood, implicitly accepting a more monetary blogging system at the very least. There are a lot of greedy people in this world, who probably are mostly self-interested to an unattractive degree, though the folks who are fine associating with them when convenient and denounce them when inconvenient are not any better.
- lastangryman 3y ago
  I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? A blogging service provides utility. It enables this writer to publish their content, and they've obviously decided that the paid service is better than alternatives. They are expressing concern that AI will replace people current paid to create things, because it's cheaper and will make people more money. The two situations seem completely different to me, I'm not sure I understand your comparison.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > I'm not sure I see your point here. The writer was fine with associating their online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on 10 months ago. So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. > You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? This is nonsense, personal opinions can neither be valid nor invalid by definition.
nashashmi 3y ago
Just had a conversation about this. Creativity is not reproducible by AI. It is a mashup by AI. People will still be in charge of creativity. And by extension in charge of creative uses of AI.
- jerrygenser 3y ago
  Is creativity not a mashup in and of itself? A human brain learning a bunch and then combining what it knows throwing some randomness in there to create something... "New" In pure scientific reasoning I agree the models need to be able to encode logic somehow. In any event, by mashing things up you might concede that these models can at least encourage human creativity
silisili 3y ago
> But to what end are we harnessing the technology that some of our brightest minds claim is more revolutionary than fire? Cheating on exams. Spamming science fiction literary magazines with so many AI-generated stories that they have to pause submissions. Replacing low-level content creators trying to build skills and experience with cheaper machine-generated content. I get their point, completely, but not sure why their hopes were so high here. Almost every person in the US has a device in their pocket capable of unlimited, free learning, of anything and everything. Instead we mainly use them for selfies, porn, and memes.
- rchaud 3y ago
  > Instead we mainly use them for selfies, porn, and memes. Don't you see the warning in the writer's words? All the marketing for iOS and Android talked about a computer in your pocket allowing for all kinds of creation. Then they locked everything down to the point until there's no computer left, just a $1000 passive consumption machine with a nice camera. Actual computer-phones like the full-Linux Nokia N900 failed. The selfie machines won. Commercial products leveraging AI are headed the same way. For every GH Copilot there will be 100 SaaS products offering better ways to maximize engagement with your blogspam or write a better VC deck.
  - tensor 3y ago
    You can do a ton of creating things on iOS. People just don't. It's not remotely because the devices are "locked down," it's because consuming content is easy and satisfying.
    - Freire_Herval 3y ago
      Creating content is easy too, tons of people do it. AI is still a nascent technology so it's not involved in the creation as much.. yet.
    - majou 3y ago
      Mobile Garage Band is actually pretty good from what I can tell, for an example.
mox111 3y ago
So much of this discourse is like: Act 1: Person builds a brand partly based on AI Act 2: Person achieves moderate success Finale: "I created a monster!!!"
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I honestly think that, if LLMs go the way enthusiasts hope, there will be a large number of people working on them that will regret the world they've made.
groffee 3y ago
[dead]
booleandilemma 3y ago
To me, a work of art or a story created by a human will always have more value than something churned out by a machine.
- midiguy 3y ago
  Pretty soon you may not even be able to have that prejudice, because who will be able to definitively say your favorite author isn't using generative AI?
  - tensor 3y ago
    This really isn't any different than the "hand crafted" trend. People like hand crafted even in cases where it's objectively worse than machine made. Also, it's often hard to know when something is really "hand crafted", or indeed where the line is before you can call it that. E.g. how many parts needs to be made by hand to say it's "hand crafted"? Also for writing, even today you don't really know if an author has used a ghost writer to help them.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > even today you don't really know if an author has used a ghost writer to help them. True, but the odds are overwhelming that the ghost writer was human.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    At which point, I'll probably stop reading new things and my favorite authors will be historical ones.
    - galleywest200 3y ago
      Why not join a group of like minded people and read each other's stories? No need to just give up and fold like that.
      - 3y ago
yieldcrv 3y ago
tl;dr so, they’re more worried about AI’s training off of their AI generated work? I think this person just only liked it before everyone else was doing it
emporas 3y ago
The stories in this page are bad. Good decision. I write stuff using LLMs all the time, back from 2020 when i used the paid service of OpenAI till today. I have so much fun writing my stories, it is freaking amazing. If no one reads my stories, i wouldn't care less, because i am enjoying them tremendously. A recent thread on HN was about 75% percent of Hollywood movies that got lost forever. A story i am writing for almost a week, alongside with GPT of course, introduces the holy trinity of the computer internet, which solves this problem. This will get published in a day or two. The problem of the Holy Trinity of the Computer Internet, cannot be solved by the machine, and it is not solved by humans either. I had to use a powerful statistical engine, like GPT, to really tackle this problem effectively, to put the words in a perfect sequence. GPT enables a sentence to be written, in a perfect average way, so perfect average it seems like super-average.
xchip 3y ago
Another 'I' post
scrubs 3y ago
Ok a few points, If you're a writer try not to use AI or have the gallantry to say so if you do. Who's/how work is done is not a fading question This sentimental, out of breath tone of this beleaguered experimenter could be in AI or a hippie drugster called Larry in Ashbury park SF who's also taking a step back. I don't think there was ever there in there, and you've just tired yourself out. That's it. There'no cosmic reveal here. Folks can we get grounded in life, politics, and AI? The hyper emotional whiplash of breezy predictions is nonsense.

74 points by andreyk 3y ago

Jupe 3y ago

Well, that's one individual who has looked past the techno shiny object that is ChatGPT/AI. Unfortunately, if the idea behind Moloch [1] has any credibility (which I think the collection action problem does) someone else will _by the nature of the beast_ continue doing so. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

sebzim4500 3y ago
>Well, that's one individual who has looked past the techno shiny object that is ChatGPT/AI. I think your wording suggests that it isn't actually useful except as a gimmick, whereas it sounds like OP is if anything upset that it is too effective and might someday replace humans.
- te_chris 3y ago
  I think OP is more disappointed in the base get rich quick hype that’s blown up, after obviously hoping for a bit more of a cultural renaissance.
- Jupe 3y ago
  I don't think a single individual who chooses to "bow out" of AI-generated content will have any impact in the long run. Apologies if my meaning was confused.
Baeocystin 3y ago
Worthwhile posting the counter-essay to Moloch, I think: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everything-else-2/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everyth...

satvikpendem 3y ago

If the story is good, I'll read it, regardless of whether it was written by an AI, a human, or a dog. I don't really see humans as being special, of only wanting to read stories that have the "human touch," whatever that is.

Freire_Herval 3y ago
So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose. I envision a future similar to the one in Wall-E and it's not exactly bad so long as the AI actually acts in our interest.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  > So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose Well yeah, one of the fundamental discoveries of nihilism. Our purpose is that which we make ourselves.
  - Freire_Herval 3y ago
    My purpose is to sit while AI takes care of everything and keeps me happy. I want to live in the matrix where I have 30 hot model wives and not know any better. The simulation of course will make me a chad and emperor of the world. That's my purpose.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      This is what I believe we already have with social media , a primitive version of the matrix where you fish for likes and validation, and it’s what VR will create, there may not be a technological singularity but rather, a place where each ego is stroked so intensely that we care less of reality. You can be totally distracted from your real existence for 90% of you life, you won’t need anything else. Just have “20 hot wives” or whatever superficial thing makes you happy.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago

MichaelZuo 3y ago

> We’re focusing the power of this new lens on amplifying the rewards flowing to capital holders because, of course we are. I want technology to be an aid to human creativity, not a necessary crutch. I want to make life better, not shove people aside because they are no longer needed to feed the capitalist greed beast. It’s a bit odd to see this from a writer that joined substack 10 months ago. When it was already famous for associating online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on. Which was too big of a change from the more open wordpress/blogspot/etc. norm for someone to claim ignorance. So I don’t quite buy this anti-capitalist rant, the writer even set up a custom domain name with their substack account, so they clearly understood, implicitly accepting a more monetary blogging system at the very least. There are a lot of greedy people in this world, who probably are mostly self-interested to an unattractive degree, though the folks who are fine associating with them when convenient and denounce them when inconvenient are not any better.

lastangryman 3y ago
I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? A blogging service provides utility. It enables this writer to publish their content, and they've obviously decided that the paid service is better than alternatives. They are expressing concern that AI will replace people current paid to create things, because it's cheaper and will make people more money. The two situations seem completely different to me, I'm not sure I understand your comparison.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > I'm not sure I see your point here. The writer was fine with associating their online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on 10 months ago. So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. > You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? This is nonsense, personal opinions can neither be valid nor invalid by definition.

nashashmi 3y ago

Just had a conversation about this. Creativity is not reproducible by AI. It is a mashup by AI. People will still be in charge of creativity. And by extension in charge of creative uses of AI.

jerrygenser 3y ago
Is creativity not a mashup in and of itself? A human brain learning a bunch and then combining what it knows throwing some randomness in there to create something... "New" In pure scientific reasoning I agree the models need to be able to encode logic somehow. In any event, by mashing things up you might concede that these models can at least encourage human creativity

silisili 3y ago

> But to what end are we harnessing the technology that some of our brightest minds claim is more revolutionary than fire? Cheating on exams. Spamming science fiction literary magazines with so many AI-generated stories that they have to pause submissions. Replacing low-level content creators trying to build skills and experience with cheaper machine-generated content. I get their point, completely, but not sure why their hopes were so high here. Almost every person in the US has a device in their pocket capable of unlimited, free learning, of anything and everything. Instead we mainly use them for selfies, porn, and memes.

rchaud 3y ago
> Instead we mainly use them for selfies, porn, and memes. Don't you see the warning in the writer's words? All the marketing for iOS and Android talked about a computer in your pocket allowing for all kinds of creation. Then they locked everything down to the point until there's no computer left, just a $1000 passive consumption machine with a nice camera. Actual computer-phones like the full-Linux Nokia N900 failed. The selfie machines won. Commercial products leveraging AI are headed the same way. For every GH Copilot there will be 100 SaaS products offering better ways to maximize engagement with your blogspam or write a better VC deck.
- tensor 3y ago
  You can do a ton of creating things on iOS. People just don't. It's not remotely because the devices are "locked down," it's because consuming content is easy and satisfying.
  - Freire_Herval 3y ago
    Creating content is easy too, tons of people do it. AI is still a nascent technology so it's not involved in the creation as much.. yet.
  - majou 3y ago
    Mobile Garage Band is actually pretty good from what I can tell, for an example.

mox111 3y ago

So much of this discourse is like: Act 1: Person builds a brand partly based on AI Act 2: Person achieves moderate success Finale: "I created a monster!!!"

JohnFen 3y ago
I honestly think that, if LLMs go the way enthusiasts hope, there will be a large number of people working on them that will regret the world they've made.

groffee 3y ago

[dead]

booleandilemma 3y ago

To me, a work of art or a story created by a human will always have more value than something churned out by a machine.

midiguy 3y ago
Pretty soon you may not even be able to have that prejudice, because who will be able to definitively say your favorite author isn't using generative AI?
- tensor 3y ago
  This really isn't any different than the "hand crafted" trend. People like hand crafted even in cases where it's objectively worse than machine made. Also, it's often hard to know when something is really "hand crafted", or indeed where the line is before you can call it that. E.g. how many parts needs to be made by hand to say it's "hand crafted"? Also for writing, even today you don't really know if an author has used a ghost writer to help them.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > even today you don't really know if an author has used a ghost writer to help them. True, but the odds are overwhelming that the ghost writer was human.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  At which point, I'll probably stop reading new things and my favorite authors will be historical ones.
  - galleywest200 3y ago
    Why not join a group of like minded people and read each other's stories? No need to just give up and fold like that.
    - 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

tl;dr so, they’re more worried about AI’s training off of their AI generated work? I think this person just only liked it before everyone else was doing it

emporas 3y ago

The stories in this page are bad. Good decision. I write stuff using LLMs all the time, back from 2020 when i used the paid service of OpenAI till today. I have so much fun writing my stories, it is freaking amazing. If no one reads my stories, i wouldn't care less, because i am enjoying them tremendously. A recent thread on HN was about 75% percent of Hollywood movies that got lost forever. A story i am writing for almost a week, alongside with GPT of course, introduces the holy trinity of the computer internet, which solves this problem. This will get published in a day or two. The problem of the Holy Trinity of the Computer Internet, cannot be solved by the machine, and it is not solved by humans either. I had to use a powerful statistical engine, like GPT, to really tackle this problem effectively, to put the words in a perfect sequence. GPT enables a sentence to be written, in a perfect average way, so perfect average it seems like super-average.

xchip 3y ago

Another 'I' post

scrubs 3y ago

Ok a few points, If you're a writer try not to use AI or have the gallantry to say so if you do. Who's/how work is done is not a fading question This sentimental, out of breath tone of this beleaguered experimenter could be in AI or a hippie drugster called Larry in Ashbury park SF who's also taking a step back. I don't think there was ever there in there, and you've just tired yourself out. That's it. There'no cosmic reveal here. Folks can we get grounded in life, politics, and AI? The hyper emotional whiplash of breezy predictions is nonsense.