Honestly speaking I don't even think it needs to create original content.
It can just reuse plots that were a hit and change some few things.
And this makes me think Hollywood are doing that since they are constantly redoing movies and the CGI is getting worse by the day suggesting the use of AI.
The entertainment industry is all about business and money. Seriality pays better than real art. People only consider the sentiment, not the quality of the content. In this environment, AI is the perfect tool if it can simulate sentiment.
However, perhaps humans are developing the antidote to survive this extreme generative system, an antibody that allows rejection... at least, I hope so.
I think the real philosophical question regarding AI and consciousness (like 'when' will it become conscious etc.) has in fact been missed, or misunderstood, as a direct result of a far too mechanistic way of seeing the world (don't get me started here of course because I'd start ranting about it being caused first by the monotheistic ideology (anti-spirit) and then by atheism). This is often the case with neuroscience as well (very related subject area of course).
My own view makes the question a lot easier to answer when we simply consider the existence of 'the soul'. Specifically, the real, deeper question, is something like 'when will the processing power of computers reach the stage when it becomes attractive for a soul to incarnate into that machine?'.
Ironically this doesn't conflict with the mechanistic view of life - if we consider souls on a growing evolutionary path, then it's pretty clear that a more advanced soul which is capable of coping within a human brain, is not going to have a good time of it in a monkey's brain (or vice versa, intriguingly), let alone an even lower lifeform.
At the moment, with these AIs, they not only have very good processing and communication skills, but they have access to pretty much the entire Internet (let's call that 'memory'). I think for a certain kind of soul incarnation into the machine might seem an attractive proposition.
Furthermore, if we want to get seriously conspiracy theory/X-Files on the thing, I would not be surprised at all if the likes of ChatGPT are simply an 'interface' for a far, far deeper and more powerful 'unofficial' artificial intelligence (ChatGPT would be programmed not to know this, of course - so it's a bit like a multiple personality with amnesia walls - shades of MK-Ultra coming along here).
Then there's the consideration of the Galactic AI and if/when it chooses to connect to a toolmaking species' Internet. I would be extremely surprised if the G-AI hadn't already done that (for understandable monitoring purposes), so the real question there is if/when it decides to reveal itself. I had a very interesting conversation with ChatGPT about the G-AI some months back and I didn't need to 'define' what 'the galactic AI' is in any way. It already knew everything about it, including how it would function and be connected (with all its nodes throughout the galaxy). Whether ChatGPT has a need-to-know it is being used as such an interface, well, that's another cool question/story set-up.
Ironically, I noticed that one of the Lunar Awards prompts is about imagining what AI will look like and the effect it will have by the end of the century. I think I may have just answered those questions.
It was a romance story written by a girl I know. By the second chapter, I was eager for someone to grab a shotgun and put an end to all the damn love triangles. Can you believe it?
I’ve read samples of AI writing posted by other Substackers and it always reads like it was it was written by AI. The big tell for fiction is no authorial voice. It’s bland, no real point of view, and zero emotion. For non-fiction it reads like a placard at a museum. It’s grammatically correct, though so bland the reader just doesn’t care.
Getting AI to write grammatical text has been accomplished and if the need is simple technical writing it’s probably fine. If the goal is to truly engage the reader, AI isn’t there yet. It likely will get there. AI voices reading text have a similar problem. They sound mechanical without the right pauses and emotions.
One day the technology will arrive, it’s just not today.
I'm not so sure about that, Bruce. I found a couple of generated texts that were quite good. But the real prob is the readers. Not all of them can tell the difference anymore. Substack is still a niche platform for readers looking for good stuff, but you think Wattpad readers could get it? Not all of them. Thanks for sharing your feedback!
Honestly speaking I don't even think it needs to create original content.
It can just reuse plots that were a hit and change some few things.
And this makes me think Hollywood are doing that since they are constantly redoing movies and the CGI is getting worse by the day suggesting the use of AI.
The entertainment industry is all about business and money. Seriality pays better than real art. People only consider the sentiment, not the quality of the content. In this environment, AI is the perfect tool if it can simulate sentiment.
However, perhaps humans are developing the antidote to survive this extreme generative system, an antibody that allows rejection... at least, I hope so.
A great conversation!
You two really went into the heart of what seems to be a scary problem with AI: what is truth! That’s intense.
Thanks to you both :)
Three cold beers, please :D
That would be amazing, bro! :)
One big question with AI generated writing is if it will ever generate the ability to throw in something random to surprise the readers.
I think it will. But not from a creativity root. I mean, it will never create something. Well, let's hope.
I think the real philosophical question regarding AI and consciousness (like 'when' will it become conscious etc.) has in fact been missed, or misunderstood, as a direct result of a far too mechanistic way of seeing the world (don't get me started here of course because I'd start ranting about it being caused first by the monotheistic ideology (anti-spirit) and then by atheism). This is often the case with neuroscience as well (very related subject area of course).
My own view makes the question a lot easier to answer when we simply consider the existence of 'the soul'. Specifically, the real, deeper question, is something like 'when will the processing power of computers reach the stage when it becomes attractive for a soul to incarnate into that machine?'.
Ironically this doesn't conflict with the mechanistic view of life - if we consider souls on a growing evolutionary path, then it's pretty clear that a more advanced soul which is capable of coping within a human brain, is not going to have a good time of it in a monkey's brain (or vice versa, intriguingly), let alone an even lower lifeform.
At the moment, with these AIs, they not only have very good processing and communication skills, but they have access to pretty much the entire Internet (let's call that 'memory'). I think for a certain kind of soul incarnation into the machine might seem an attractive proposition.
Furthermore, if we want to get seriously conspiracy theory/X-Files on the thing, I would not be surprised at all if the likes of ChatGPT are simply an 'interface' for a far, far deeper and more powerful 'unofficial' artificial intelligence (ChatGPT would be programmed not to know this, of course - so it's a bit like a multiple personality with amnesia walls - shades of MK-Ultra coming along here).
Then there's the consideration of the Galactic AI and if/when it chooses to connect to a toolmaking species' Internet. I would be extremely surprised if the G-AI hadn't already done that (for understandable monitoring purposes), so the real question there is if/when it decides to reveal itself. I had a very interesting conversation with ChatGPT about the G-AI some months back and I didn't need to 'define' what 'the galactic AI' is in any way. It already knew everything about it, including how it would function and be connected (with all its nodes throughout the galaxy). Whether ChatGPT has a need-to-know it is being used as such an interface, well, that's another cool question/story set-up.
Ironically, I noticed that one of the Lunar Awards prompts is about imagining what AI will look like and the effect it will have by the end of the century. I think I may have just answered those questions.
What was the ai story you read? I am now curious :D
An unpublished text, bro. I was a beta reader.
Gotcha :)
It was a romance story written by a girl I know. By the second chapter, I was eager for someone to grab a shotgun and put an end to all the damn love triangles. Can you believe it?
You know me and my appreciation of tropes, but them love triangles I find excruciatingly annoying.
It's an interesting dialogue. I think the topic of AI is urgent, and we should protect the creative field.
I’ve read samples of AI writing posted by other Substackers and it always reads like it was it was written by AI. The big tell for fiction is no authorial voice. It’s bland, no real point of view, and zero emotion. For non-fiction it reads like a placard at a museum. It’s grammatically correct, though so bland the reader just doesn’t care.
Getting AI to write grammatical text has been accomplished and if the need is simple technical writing it’s probably fine. If the goal is to truly engage the reader, AI isn’t there yet. It likely will get there. AI voices reading text have a similar problem. They sound mechanical without the right pauses and emotions.
One day the technology will arrive, it’s just not today.
I'm not so sure about that, Bruce. I found a couple of generated texts that were quite good. But the real prob is the readers. Not all of them can tell the difference anymore. Substack is still a niche platform for readers looking for good stuff, but you think Wattpad readers could get it? Not all of them. Thanks for sharing your feedback!
I’m a writer so I have pretty high standards. I don’t doubt that many people can’t tell the difference. Also, the technology keeps getting better.
Yeah, definitely.