> Decries AI for producing slop > Uses AI to produce website
The article isn't even about AI slop other than the title for some reason
[deleted]
Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
161–170 of 265 posts
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#162If you are interested in a non-fiction book, check out Veritas: Truth Across Cultures[1]. It's a collection of quotes/saying/proverbs that are similar between cultures, which I call truths. I am in interested in long term thinking, things that stood the test of time. This was primarily put together for myself as a lens to view the world.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#163Not to be intentionally contrarian, but I have thought a lot about this: I think good fiction is actually the antithesis of AI, fundamentally. LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output. This can give you some creative results, but it is ultimately kind of limited. I cannot imagine that prompting an AI a thousand times would give you something truly original in the way many high-quality fi…
Models are increasingly showing their ability to extrapolate into the human unexplored (math proofs being the most apparent). What gives you confidence the absurdity of life is uniquely difficult for models to source?
Mathematical proofs are hard to come to, but easy (or “cheap”) to verify. Also having a math proof processed through a transformer to derive an output that matches existing proof patterns kid of makes sense. The former allows you to generate hundreds or thousands of iteration and cheaply verifying its correctness until you hit the right randomness level. Generating thousands of fiction books then verify them doesn’t really work.
Most good fiction authors are trying to communicate a story that’s forming in their minds. Even when they get stuck, they are usually not stuck because they just don’t know anyone to ask. It would’t be their voice anymore. Some do seek input and those might experiment with llms for ideas. Using llms for research, technical questions, grammar, synonym sentences, word selection, etc makes sense too.
I’d agree with OP for people generating full stories through llms. While I say that, I know a very young person who told a while back (like early ChatGPT 4 time) they use it to write fan fiction for books or characters they like.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#164The history section of the book price index is incredibly america-biased. History of america, american natives, japan after ww2 and vietnam in the last century.
That is what Sells. The USA has a lot of people so selling to us is going to make money even in a niche subject like history.
Historians who are not trying to sell mass market books have a much broader set of books. You won't see them in a normal bookstore.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#165Not to be intentionally contrarian, but I have thought a lot about this: I think good fiction is actually the antithesis of AI, fundamentally. LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output. This can give you some creative results, but it is ultimately kind of limited. I cannot imagine that prompting an AI a thousand times would give you something truly original in the way many high-quality fi…
Models are increasingly showing their ability to extrapolate into the human unexplored (math proofs being the most apparent). What gives you confidence the absurdity of life is uniquely difficult for models to source?
Math seems entirely unrelated to the human experience to me, at least in the sense of “this thing happened to me and I will transmute it into a work of art.” Math is pure abstraction.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output > The magic and absurdity of life is a necessary thing to create such works. These two points seem slightly conflicting. Why if a human is truly more creative than AI, must it experience "the magic and absurdity of life" if it can be creative without "combining things into output"? Is a creative human then just not splicing and recombining their…
> And therefore, if an AI had more data that mirrors that experience in some way would it be sufficiently creative to create something "truly original"? An important distinction seems to lie in a human having original experiences to draw from, while an AI has only "data that mirrors" experiences.
> while an AI has only "data that mirrors" experiences.
True for a lot of current AI. With more robotic bodies, loads more access to cameras/audio/satellite/science measurements, an AI can have original experience on a level that can only be described as god-like compared to humans.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#167Not to be intentionally contrarian, but I have thought a lot about this: I think good fiction is actually the antithesis of AI, fundamentally. LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output. This can give you some creative results, but it is ultimately kind of limited. I cannot imagine that prompting an AI a thousand times would give you something truly original in the way many high-quality fi…
> LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output
In terms of how writers think about creativity this doesn’t reflect reality- there’s the old writer’s saying that there are only 7 stories (and other variations of this idea) and that writing is about creatively remixing these well-worn ideas.
The LLM’s capability to write acceptable fiction and nonfiction is coming soon if it’s not already here. (I think right now it still needs some high level input from humans, depending on length and topic)
It’s clear to me that, especially as LLMs get better and better, there’s only one real difference- it’s that I don’t want to hear what an LLM has to say. I’m only interested in what other humans have to say. I feel the same way about AI music- even if it sounds ok, even as good as the kind of unoriginal pop music that’s not AI made (but is a kind of it’s own slop) or a bad committee made hollywood movie, it’s still fundamentally more interesting than something that’s been generated. Even if it’s 100% fiction it’s still based on a real human’s life experiences.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#168Is it only me or the titles of top books from History, Nature, and Politics sound very click-baiting? I'm really taken off by these titles.
Hey buddy, are you feeling all right?
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And therefore, if an AI had more data that mirrors that experience in some way would it be sufficiently creative to create something "truly original"? An important distinction seems to lie in a human having original experiences to draw from, while an AI has only "data that mirrors" experiences.
> while an AI has only "data that mirrors" experiences. True for a lot of current AI. With more robotic bodies, loads more access to cameras/audio/satellite/science measurements, an AI can have original experience on a level that can only be described as god-like compared to humans.
And at this point you’re far off into science fiction, and beyond reasonable discussion of this.
Even then, it’s not really clear to me that an android with the exact appearance of a person will have the same experiences. They aren’t biological creatures with millions of years of evolution behind them.
Re: Quality non-fiction books are the antithesis of AI slop
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are really only capable of combining different things into output > The magic and absurdity of life is a necessary thing to create such works. These two points seem slightly conflicting. Why if a human is truly more creative than AI, must it experience "the magic and absurdity of life" if it can be creative without "combining things into output"? Is a creative human then just not splicing and recombining their…
> And therefore, if an AI had more data that mirrors that experience in some way would it be sufficiently creative to create something "truly original"? An important distinction seems to lie in a human having original experiences to draw from, while an AI has only "data that mirrors" experiences.
ChatGPT has had more conversations than you or I have. And it's conversed with people from a wider range of backgrounds in a wider range of situations.