7 ms·
If there is something that I would like AI to never touch, it's that. Please stop making the world worse.
by zorked 1y ago
If there is something that I would like AI to never touch, it's that. Please stop making the world worse.
- nougati 1y agoLike it or not, this stuff will happen. Might as well have curiosity about it
- contagiousflow 1y agoTechnological change doesn't happen independent of culture. Stop with the technological determinism.
- smitty1e 1y agoThe proper counter will be cultural determinism, if sufficient people insist upon supporting human writers crafting real books.
- vidarh 1y agoI'd argue that technological change that is a simple enough iteration of existing technology that it can be carried out by small groups of people will happen independent of culture with a very high probability once a population is large enough. In this case, so many people are curious as to whether we can make this work and/or see financial implications that this will happen irrespective of whether wider culture rejects it.
- contagiousflow 1y agoPrioritizing profit above all is still a culture though. And it is the choice of a people to give a small group with large amount of money huge cultural influence.
- deadbabe 1y agoYou cannot stop people from making the world worse or better. The best you can do is focus on your own life. In time many will say we are lucky to live in a world with so much content, where anything you want to see or read can be spun up in an instant, without labor. And though most will no longer make a living doing some of these content creation activities by hand and brain, you can still rejoice knowing that those who do it anyway are doing it purely for their love of the art, not for any kind of money. A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI.
- conartist6 1y ago> In time many will say we are lucky to live in a world with so much content, where anything you want to see or read can be spun up in an instant, without labor. Man, you are talking about a world that's not just much worse but apocalyptically gone. In that world, there is no more art, full stop. The completeness and average-ness of stimulation would be the exact equivalent of sensory deprivation.
- deadbabe 1y agoIt seems paradoxical to say there is no more art, when AI’s ability for art generation is infinite. AI art can be equally stimulating, especially for people who will eventually be born in a time when AI generated art has always existed for them. It is only resisted by those who have lived their whole lives expecting all art to be human generated.
- conartist6 1y agoArt is suffering and hard work and pouring your soul into what you do. Art is making a statement that defines your whole life. I am the programmer child of two artists, and I can say without hesitation that AI doesn't generate art
- owebmaster 1y agoBut people using AI do
- frozenseven 1y agoMore capable AI systems make the world better. If you don't like AI written material on principle, you can simply choose not to read it. Follow human writers who don't use AI.
- Gerardo1 1y ago> More capable AI systems make the world better. Support that. Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.
- frozenseven 1y agoIf the cost and externality is that people are upset about it, I honestly don't care.
- Gerardo1 1y agoNo you can start with actual money.
- frozenseven 1y agoWhat about money? You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. If you're worried about large scale automation and so forth, I'm fine with something like UBI.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago> More capable AI systems make the world better [so long as we also include the mitigations necessary due to the known and unknown downsides of AI] I guess that's what you meant?
- frozenseven 1y agoIn reference to automation and UBI? I don't see automation as a downside. Of course you need to readjust, as with any large scale change.
- esafak 1y agoI think it's fine as long as its output is watermarked so you can avoid it.
- HappMacDonald 1y agoIf you need to watermark it then you don't need to watermark it, though.
- verisimi 1y agoAi content should absolutely be overtly marked imo. A beep should preceed ai speech, a visual for graphics, etc. This should have been a rule from the beginning. Pretending to be human, like pretending to be a police officer, should have consequences.
- EGreg 1y agoWhat does that even mean
- blargey 1y ago"If an artificial label/watermark is the only criteria by which you can differentiate <unwanted version of product> from <wanted version>, by definition there's nothing wrong with the unwanted product itself" Of course, "art" isn't one fixed standard of quality/features, and you can get "watermark-requiring parity" with average/bad/unmemorable creations but not the top percentile that's actually valued, for example.
- EGreg 1y agoCan you apply the same logic to, say, factory farm meat, or conflict diamonds?
- saberience 1y agoSo if I can make an AI agent which talks to you just like your husband/wife/girlfriend etc, I can just send you messages without identifying myself as an AI? I mean, if you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter right?
- CuriouslyC 1y agoAI is a great writing assistant, if a human is in the driver's seat determining WHAT to write and retaining creative control over the outputs it can only lead to better creative writing. This is because the human can spend less time (re)writing and more time refining and tuning, and AI is a great brainstorming partner/beta reader.
- soulofmischief 1y agoNot everyone shares your same world view, and some people do want to apply machine intelligence to their writing process. You don't have to participate; ignore AI-generated or AI-assisted content just like you ignore some other thing you don't enjoy that already exists today. But you also don't have to devalue and dismiss the interests of others.
- saberience 1y agoAll the people generating AI-assisted writing are all the people that never had enough passion or talent to do it before. If you weren't inclined to write fiction or poetry etc before AI was here to do it for you, you probably shouldn't be doing it now.
- vidarh 1y agoThat's extremely presumptuous. I've published two novels, and written hundreds of poems over the years (the latter I'm not sure I'll ever publish), and while I will keep writing manually I'd love to have AI tools that'd write all of the things I want to read that doesn't exist, that I don't want to write myself. I don't get remotely the same things out of reading and writing, so writing those stories myself does not give me the enjoyment I'd want out of reading them.
- soulofmischief 1y agoAwful take. Transformers have greatly increased the potential number of cool things I can do in my lifetime. I've written poetry, short stories, I draw, and am an experienced professional software engineer, and thanks to transformers I've been able to augment my creative workflow. People were similarly dismissive about computers in general. And calculators, and the printing press, and Photoshop, and cameras, and every other disruptive technology. Yet, people found a way to be creative with them even before society accepted their medium. Truth is, you don't get to decide what someone else's creative journey looks like.
- piltdownman 1y ago
- gabriel666smith 1y agoWow! Why? Personally, I'm fascinated by the question of what Joyce would have done with SillyTavern. Or Nabokov. Or Burroughs. Or T S Eliot, who incorporated news clippings into Wasteland - which feels, to me, extremely analogous with the way LLMs refract existing text into new patterns.
- km144 1y agoCreative works carry meaning through their author. The best art gives you insight into the imaginative mind of another human being—that is central to the experience of art at a fundamental level. But the machine does not intend anything. Based on the article as I understand it, this product basically does some simulated annealing of the quality of art as judged by an AI to achieve the "best possible story"—again, as judged by an AI. Maybe I am an outlier or an idiot, but I don't think you can judge every tool by its utility. People say that AI helps them write stories, I ask to what end? AI helps write code, again to what end? Is the story you're writing adding value to the world? Is the software you're writing adding value to the world? These seem like the important questions if AI does indeed become a dominant economic force over the coming decades.
- gabriel666smith 1y agoAh, fair enough. I believe quite strongly that creative works' meaning exists for the reader / audience / user. I don't think interpretation of art is towards an authorial, authoritative truth - rather that it's a lens to view the world through, and change one's perspective on it - so this is where we differ. But I understand your viewpoint. I do agree that the LLM's idea of achieving the 'best possible story' is defined entirely by its design and prompting, and that is obviously completely ridiculous - not least because appreciating (or enduring) a story is a totally subjective experience. I do disagree that one needs to ask "to what end?" when talking about writing stories, the same way one shouldn't need to ask "to what end?" about a pencil or a paintbrush. The joy of creating should be in the creation. Commercial software is absolutely a more nuanced, complex topic - it's so much more intertwined with people's jobs, livelihoods, aeroplanes not falling out of the sky, power grids staying on, etc. That's a different, separate question. I don't think it's fair to equate them. I think LLMs are the most interesting paintbrush-for-words we've come up with since the typewriter (at least), and that, historically, artists who embrace new technologies that arise in their forms are usually proven to be correct in their embrace of them.