4 ms·

No, I’m sure they will at some point, but I don’t think that eliminates the actual usefulness of a talented writer. It just makes unique styles more valuable, r

No, I’m sure they will at some point, but I don’t think that eliminates the actual usefulness of a talented writer. It just makes unique styles more valuable, raises the baseline acceptable copy to something better (in the way that Bootstrap increased website design quality), and shifts the role of writer to more of an editor. Someone still has to choose what to prompt and I don’t think a boilerplate “make me a marketing plan then write pages for it” will be enough to stand out. And I’d bet that the cyborg writers using AI will outcompete the purely AI ones. (I also was just using it as a point to show how being identified as AI-made is already starting to have a negative connotation. Maybe the future is one where everything is an AI but no one admits it.)

zarzavat 1y ago
Why couldn't an AI do all of that? > And I’d bet that the cyborg writers using AI will outcompete the purely AI ones. In the early days of chess engines there were similar hopes for cyborg chess, whereby a human and engine would team up to be better than an engine alone. What actually happened was that the engines quickly got so good that the expected value of human intervention was negative - the engine crunching so much information than the human ever could. Marketing is also a kind of game. Will humans always be better at it? We have a poor track record so far.
- oblio 1y ago
  Intellectuals have a strong fetish for complete information games such as chess. Reality and especially human interaction are basically the complete opposite.
- slowlyform 1y ago
  I tried asking chatgpt for brainrot speech and all examples they gave me sound very different from what the new kids on the internet are using. Maybe language will always evolve faster than whatever amount of Data openAI can train their model with :).
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Chess is objective, stories and style are subjective. Humans crave novelty, fresh voices, connection and layers of meaning. It's possible that the connection can be forged and it can get smart enough to bake layers of meaning in there, but AI will never be good at bringing novelty or a fresh voice just by its very nature.
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    LLMs are frozen in time and do not have experiences so there's nothing to relate to. I'd pay extra for writing with some kind of "no AI used" certification, especially for art or information
- cobbzilla 1y ago
  no matter what you ask AI to do, it’s going to give you an “average“ answer. Even if you tell it to use a very distinct specific voice and write in a very specific tone, it’s going to give you the “average“ specific voice and tone you’ve asked for. AI is the antithesis of creativity and originality. This gives me hope.
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    What is creative or original thought? You are not the first person to say this after all.
    - cobbzilla 1y ago
      Not being 100% algorithmically or mathematically derived is a good start. I’m certain there’s more but to me this is a minimum bar.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        If your brain is not running algorithms (which are ultimately just math regardless of the compute substrate), how do you imagine it working then, aside from religious woo like "souls"?
        chuckadams 1y ago
        I dunno, I think artificiality is a pretty reasonable criterion to go by, but it doesn't seem at all related to originality, nor does originality really stack up when we too are also repeating and remixing what we were previously taught. Clearly we do a lot more than that as well, but when it comes to defining creativity, I don't think we're any closer to nailing that Jello to the tree.
        cobbzilla 1y ago
        sure and physics is all strings and pure math at the the most fundamental level; kind of misses the point.

zarzavat 1y ago

Why couldn't an AI do all of that? > And I’d bet that the cyborg writers using AI will outcompete the purely AI ones. In the early days of chess engines there were similar hopes for cyborg chess, whereby a human and engine would team up to be better than an engine alone. What actually happened was that the engines quickly got so good that the expected value of human intervention was negative - the engine crunching so much information than the human ever could. Marketing is also a kind of game. Will humans always be better at it? We have a poor track record so far.

oblio 1y ago
Intellectuals have a strong fetish for complete information games such as chess. Reality and especially human interaction are basically the complete opposite.
slowlyform 1y ago
I tried asking chatgpt for brainrot speech and all examples they gave me sound very different from what the new kids on the internet are using. Maybe language will always evolve faster than whatever amount of Data openAI can train their model with :).
CuriouslyC 1y ago
Chess is objective, stories and style are subjective. Humans crave novelty, fresh voices, connection and layers of meaning. It's possible that the connection can be forged and it can get smart enough to bake layers of meaning in there, but AI will never be good at bringing novelty or a fresh voice just by its very nature.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  LLMs are frozen in time and do not have experiences so there's nothing to relate to. I'd pay extra for writing with some kind of "no AI used" certification, especially for art or information
cobbzilla 1y ago
no matter what you ask AI to do, it’s going to give you an “average“ answer. Even if you tell it to use a very distinct specific voice and write in a very specific tone, it’s going to give you the “average“ specific voice and tone you’ve asked for. AI is the antithesis of creativity and originality. This gives me hope.
- chuckadams 1y ago
  What is creative or original thought? You are not the first person to say this after all.
  - cobbzilla 1y ago
    Not being 100% algorithmically or mathematically derived is a good start. I’m certain there’s more but to me this is a minimum bar.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      If your brain is not running algorithms (which are ultimately just math regardless of the compute substrate), how do you imagine it working then, aside from religious woo like "souls"?
      - chuckadams 1y ago
        I dunno, I think artificiality is a pretty reasonable criterion to go by, but it doesn't seem at all related to originality, nor does originality really stack up when we too are also repeating and remixing what we were previously taught. Clearly we do a lot more than that as well, but when it comes to defining creativity, I don't think we're any closer to nailing that Jello to the tree.
      - cobbzilla 1y ago
        sure and physics is all strings and pure math at the the most fundamental level; kind of misses the point.