To me, a work of art or a story created by a human will always have more value than something churned out by a machine.
If the story is good, I'll read it, regardless of whether it was written by an AI, a human, or a dog. I don't really see humans as being special, of only wanting to read stories that have the "human touch," whatever that is.
Ok a few points,
If you're a writer try not to use AI or have the gallantry to say so if you do. Who's/how work is done is not a fading question
This sentimental, out of breath tone of this beleaguered experimenter could be in AI or a hippie drugster called Larry in Ashbury park SF who's also taking a step back.
I don't think there was ever there in there, and you've just tired yourself out. That's it. There'no cosmic reveal here.
Folks can we get grounded in life, politics, and AI? The hyper emotional whiplash of breezy predictions is nonsense.
Just had a conversation about this. Creativity is not reproducible by AI. It is a mashup by AI. People will still be in charge of creativity. And by extension in charge of creative uses of AI.
Well, that's one individual who has looked past the techno shiny object that is ChatGPT/AI.
Unfortunately, if the idea behind Moloch [1] has any credibility (which I think the collection action problem does) someone else will _by the nature of the beast_ continue doing so.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
The stories in this page are bad. Good decision. I write stuff using LLMs all the time, back from 2020 when i used the paid service of OpenAI till today. I have so much fun writing my stories, it is freaking amazing. If no one reads my stories, i wouldn't care less, because i am enjoying them tremendously.
A recent thread on HN was about 75% percent of Hollywood movies that got lost forever. A story i am writing for almost a week, alongside with GPT of course, introduces the holy trinity of the computer internet, which solves this problem. This will get published in a day or two.
The problem of the Holy Trinity of the Computer Internet, cannot be solved by the machine, and it is not solved by humans either. I had to use a powerful statistical engine, like GPT, to really tackle this problem effectively, to put the words in a perfect sequence. GPT enables a sentence to be written, in a perfect average way, so perfect average it seems like super-average.
> We’re focusing the power of this new lens on amplifying the rewards flowing to capital holders because, of course we are. I want technology to be an aid to human creativity, not a necessary crutch. I want to make life better, not shove people aside because they are no longer needed to feed the capitalist greed beast.
It’s a bit odd to see this from a writer that joined substack 10 months ago. When it was already famous for associating online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on. Which was too big of a change from the more open wordpress/blogspot/etc. norm for someone to claim ignorance.
So I don’t quite buy this anti-capitalist rant, the writer even set up a custom domain name with their substack account, so they clearly understood, implicitly accepting a more monetary blogging system at the very least.
There are a lot of greedy people in this world, who probably are mostly self-interested to an unattractive degree, though the folks who are fine associating with them when convenient and denounce them when inconvenient are not any better.
So much of this discourse is like: Act 1: Person builds a brand partly based on AI Act 2: Person achieves moderate success Finale: "I created a monster!!!"
Another 'I' post
tl;dr so, they’re more worried about AI’s training off of their AI generated work?
I think this person just only liked it before everyone else was doing it
[dead]
> But to what end are we harnessing the technology that some of our brightest minds claim is more revolutionary than fire? Cheating on exams. Spamming science fiction literary magazines with so many AI-generated stories that they have to pause submissions. Replacing low-level content creators trying to build skills and experience with cheaper machine-generated content.
I get their point, completely, but not sure why their hopes were so high here.
Almost every person in the US has a device in their pocket capable of unlimited, free learning, of anything and everything. Instead we mainly use them for selfies, porn, and memes.