Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
This topic is about
Clarkesworld
Bulletin Board
>
AI Tip of the Iceberg
date
newest »
newest »
Tip of the iceberg, yes. I think we'll see a lot of action in this area in 2023. Your info above in quotes makes my head spin. I plan to keep an eye on this trend. Meanwhile, I've continued to write and market on my own as an indie author, but I can't work as fast as machines do. www.colleenbooks.com. Looking forward to comments from other authors. I think authors still have the best and most creative brains and that matters to the discriminating reading audience.
Colleen wrote: "Tip of the iceberg, yes. I think we'll see a lot of action in this area in 2023. Your info above in quotes makes my head spin. I plan to keep an eye on this trend. Meanwhile, I've continued to writ...""I think authors still have the best and most creative brains and that matters to the discriminating reading audience."
Agreed, but I am biased, currently devouring Tamsyn Muir's "Locked Tomb" series. I can't imagine an AI accomplishing anything close.
The main essence of the human brain is creativity. AI programs, on the other hand, use algorythms and logic. Those 'authors' who use AI are simply too lazy or lack the imagination to do the writing themselves. They will never amount to much to me, as they don't have real talent and are simply after a quick buck. Publishers should keep those AI-produced 'books' in a separate, clearly identified category, so that readers know what kind of product they are buying.
Michel wrote: "The main essence of the human brain is creativity. AI programs, on the other hand, use algorythms and logic. Those 'authors' who use AI are simply too lazy or lack the imagination to do the writing..."Hope springs eternal.
It is chilling to imagine a world in which AI-generated content drowns out the voices of human creatives. And so easy to see the limitations of AI in those contexts. After all, prompted to discuss why the caged bird sings, AI can probably tell us about survival tactics, signaling calls, self-defense mechanisms, mating habits, and the like. It may even be able to regurgitate talking points and plot summaries. But it can't tell us about meaning, even if it seems to.
Kate wrote: "It is chilling to imagine a world in which AI-generated content drowns out the voices of human creatives. And so easy to see the limitations of AI in those contexts. After all, prompted to discuss ..."I was confident about art being computer-proof. I visited the visual art site DeviantArt, though, and these pretty stunning AI-generated pictures started appearing.
Then I recalled the behavior of our corporate masters when it comes to profit: "That which can be broken must be broken." (30 Days of Night, 2007).
We may be lucky that there isn't a ton of money in creative writing.
If I may weigh in, I can't see AI taking over because the written word (as far as everything except textbooks) requires an essence. People have experiences and they have dreams. AI doesn't bend, It sees things in black and white so to speak. There is definitely people who will take advantage of it, but overall I believe that people are what makes the story.
AI is already used for a vast amount of crappy online news reporting. If you've ever read those ridiculously repetitive reports, and this from any paper, they tend to be written by AI with minimal input from people. You can tell it's computer-generated because of how utterly crap, repetitive and technical they are. I agree it won't replace the living - the living will just adapt to the new type of accessibility. Like Grammarly. How many people use that to refine their writing? It's imperfect, and can make work so over-technical that it loses any heart if used too much. But it can help, and it can assist people to expand their vocabulary and be more dynamic in their writing. Much like Microsoft Word. I can't be the only one who tells it to f-off fairly often we it underlines my work.
There can't be Puritanism in anything, because otherwise we'd all still be writing with chalk in caves, or fingers in the sand. Writing with a computer doesn't make one any less a writer because we're not dipping a quill into ink and using parchment. We've just made it easier and more accessible. Much like communication. But people become tired of things fairly easily once they're saturated, and seek out more organic forms.
Paralyzed wrote: "People have experiences and they have dreams. AI doesn't bend, It..."
Philip K. Dick might disagree about AI not bending... XD
Toney wrote: "Michel wrote: "The main essence of the human brain is creativity. AI programs, on the other hand, use algorythms and logic. Those 'authors' who use AI are simply too lazy or lack the imagination to..."This bring up a thought I had the other day. Can Chatbots understand sarcasm or irony? if you ask a question sarcastically or rhetorically, would it "get it"?
I'm thinking no, but I haven't tried it yet.
Mae wrote: "Toney wrote: "Michel wrote: "The main essence of the human brain is creativity. AI programs, on the other hand, use algorythms and logic. Those 'authors' who use AI are simply too lazy or lack the ..."Theoretically, if the AI finds an example of irony online, it can teach itself.
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/24/115928...
Clarkesworld magazine is already seeing it. So far, they are not impressed by the AI's work, but this trend is just getting started. This software learns, after all:
"By the time we closed on the 20th, around noon, we had received 700 legitimate submissions and 500 machine-written ones"
"There's a rise of side hustle culture online . . . And some people have followings that say, 'Hey, you can make some quick money with ChatGPT, and here's how, and here's a list of magazines you could submit to.'"
AI is already disrupting the world of visual art, taking advantage of a "fair use" legal clause. Could it be that by publishing on-line, we've set the stage for the end of art? Imagine publishers tired of relying on unpredictable artists. Big business, after all, loves predictability, as evidenced by the flood of mediocre superhero movies that still make a handsome profit.
Sigh.