4 ms·
> Likely because he feels it's harmful to the way he earns his living. Absurd. Scalzi fans are not going to stop reading his works because LLMs exist. If anyth
by latexr 3mo ago
> Likely because he feels it's harmful to the way he earns his living.
Absurd. Scalzi fans are not going to stop reading his works because LLMs exist. If anything, established authors are the ones with the least to fear.
This talking point that when people dislike something it’s because it affects their personal finances is getting really tired. Not everyone is a greedy selfish prick who only thinks of themselves, people are allowed to dislike things for other reasons. That’s normal, it’s not an anomaly.
> but the genie will never go completely back into the bottle and folks are going to need to get used to the new world.
And apparently we’ll never share another original idea, either. “Genie is out of the bottle”, “you’re going to get left behind”. Apparently the people who called LLMs parrots got it wrong, they instead turn people into them, mindlessly repeating whatever the labs want them to.
- scotty79 3mo agoNobody even started to seriously write books using AI. But at one point there will be AI books on "most read" lists. And a more than one of those will have readership higher than anything by John Scalzi. And he's not bad, I liked what I read of his.
- TheOtherHobbes 3mo agoPlenty of people have been using AI to write books for a couple of years now. The successful ones already knew how to write books - which directly contradicts the standard line about "It's just people who couldn't do it without AI." That's just objectively wrong. There have been some successful spammers who flood Amazon with tens/hundreds/thousands of titles, but that's more of an exercise in technology and marketing than writing.
- scotty79 3mo agoAny AI bestsellers you know about yet?
- bluefirebrand 3mo agoYou're probably right, and it will be an incredibly sad day when we have completed replaced the human part of creation in our culture with AI creation Might just be final nail in the coffin for our cultural stagnation
- scotty79 3mo agoHuman literature won't be completely replaced, same way photography and print didn't replace painting. They just outgrew it billion times (in volmue at least) and the humanity is richer for it.
- latexr 3mo agoHumanity is richer because photography outgrew painting? How do you figure? I’m not judging or disagreeing, I’m just interested in the argument. On a utilitarian sense, no doubt a photography is more useful than a painting. But in the artistic/creative sense (what the conversation is about), I’m not sure the case is that clear-cut, hence the question.
- scotty79 3mo ago> But in the artistic/creative sense (what the conversation is about), I’m not sure the case is that clear-cut, hence the question. Art for me is joy (or in wider definition emotion) of the beholders (and the creators). The sum of joy (and other emotions) that people derive from making, sharing and viewing photos manyfold exceeds sum of emotional value that paintings deliver.
- mapontosevenths 3mo ago> Apparently the people who called LLMs parrots got it wrong, they instead turn people into them, mindlessly repeating whatever the labs want them to. Being rude about it doesn't make you right about it. It sounds like people are repeating themselves because they have to keep repeating the obvious in every one of these threads: The tools are useful, people are going to use them. Cope.