5 ms·

Not 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

Not 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 ago
All 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  Awful 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
    You ARE, however, allowed to decide what constitutes Art - and the determining factor for many comes down to conception and intent. With the advent of creation by prompting, the conception and intent is abstracted away to a patron/artist interaction as opposed to the tool/artist synergy you contend. Providing only instruction and infrastructure as input means the appropriate analogy is something more akin to Medici/Michelangelo than Mass-Production-Silkscreening/Warhol. You may not get to decide what someone else's creative journey looks like, but you are more than entitled to critique the extent of its creativity and artistic veracity.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - soulofmischief 1y ago
      Nope, that's also incorrect. You get to decide what you think is art, but not what others consider art to be. That is the nature of subjectivity: your opinion holds no weight over others.
      - phorkyas82 1y ago
        Generally, it's inter-subjectively decided what art is, which works enter the canon and are passed on. Placing it solely in each individual, "it's only a matter of taste", falls a bit short of some centuries of aesthetic theory. Also, AI is maybe only the last straw as Silicon Valley and the digital sphere was already "transforming" the creative industry, cp this piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-death-of-the-artist-and-the-birth-of-the-creative-entrepreneur/383497/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-dea...
        soulofmischief 1y ago
        No. The simple fact is that you cannot tell two people, a producer and consumer of art respectively, what kind of relationship they are allowed to have nor, what medium they express it through, or whether or not it is a valid form of creativity. It is simply none of your business, and it's exceedingly arrogant to think otherwise.

saberience 1y ago

All 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 ago
That'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 ago
Awful 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
  You ARE, however, allowed to decide what constitutes Art - and the determining factor for many comes down to conception and intent. With the advent of creation by prompting, the conception and intent is abstracted away to a patron/artist interaction as opposed to the tool/artist synergy you contend. Providing only instruction and infrastructure as input means the appropriate analogy is something more akin to Medici/Michelangelo than Mass-Production-Silkscreening/Warhol. You may not get to decide what someone else's creative journey looks like, but you are more than entitled to critique the extent of its creativity and artistic veracity.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    Nope, that's also incorrect. You get to decide what you think is art, but not what others consider art to be. That is the nature of subjectivity: your opinion holds no weight over others.
    - phorkyas82 1y ago
      Generally, it's inter-subjectively decided what art is, which works enter the canon and are passed on. Placing it solely in each individual, "it's only a matter of taste", falls a bit short of some centuries of aesthetic theory. Also, AI is maybe only the last straw as Silicon Valley and the digital sphere was already "transforming" the creative industry, cp this piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-death-of-the-artist-and-the-birth-of-the-creative-entrepreneur/383497/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-dea...
      - soulofmischief 1y ago
        No. The simple fact is that you cannot tell two people, a producer and consumer of art respectively, what kind of relationship they are allowed to have nor, what medium they express it through, or whether or not it is a valid form of creativity. It is simply none of your business, and it's exceedingly arrogant to think otherwise.