101–110 of 117 posts
Soon, however, I expect AI to write even better, more personal, and more riveting stories than humans. It is just that they are bad now that they are blocked from submissions.
Is it gonna happen after cars drive themselves or before?
The AI will figure out to pay unemployed writers pennies for small captivating stories and then stitch them together and earn the big bucks.
The floodgates are now open for all the people who believe they have it in them to be great writers, if only it weren't for all of that tedious writing. As if the value in writing consists mainly in having an idea. This is much like people who believe that their great business idea is (by itself) worth millions.
What does the value in writing mainly consist of? Edit: currently this question is at -3, as though it’s obvious to everyone the difference between valuable writing and not valuable writing. To me it’s a worthwhile question, particularly because the more precisely we answer it the more precisely ChatGPT will become able to produce valuable writing a couple releases from now.
Inherently, the serialization is lossy and the deserialization is also lossy.
Good writing can have:
- high compression ratio: many things transmitted rapidly
- higher fidelity: original thought is serialized in a way recoverable by sufficient available deserializers
- novelty
Of course, this is a serde problem, so people try to name each of these things in different ways: deserializers that have the ability to extract more information from serialized content are called connoisseurs, for instance. Frequently this is because the serialized content relies on pre-computed results stored in the deserializer memory, sometimes called "allusions".
I will leave you with two examples of text expressed in different ways. The Remains of The Day is a book that follows a man's journey of self-discovery after he has spent much of his life in service, having missed many opportunities due to his devotion to that service. I urge you to read the book, compare it with that text, and see if I was accurate or did service to it.
Second: I sometimes do things that seem unlike the image of me that I retain. Something makes me do them. Why is that?
That is one way to express what Captain Ahab says in Moby Dick:
What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time; recklessly making me ready to do what in my own proper, natural heart, I durst not so much as dare?
One of my favorite stories on Clarkesworld is "The Secret Life of Bots", by Suzanne Palmer: https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/palmer_09_17/ Does anyone think a LLM could write this?
Soon, however, I expect AI to write even better, more personal, and more riveting stories than humans. It is just that they are bad now that they are blocked from submissions.
I'm sure. There's a certain ick factor in consuming machine-generated content, but I suspect it's more of a resistance to change or the fact that all machine-generated content until now has been garbage. Or some romantic idea about a human having written it. Once I get over it and try to look upon it with more childish eyes, it seems like it will be pretty amazing to generate infinite content I want instead of waitin…
It shouldn't matter which tools were used to write a story, just whether it's a good story or not. However, how would any publisher assess such a flood of submissions? Use AI to pre-classify stories as good/mediocre/bad?
[flagged]
Were sci-fi authors advocating for greater use of AI? If anything this looks more like Don't Create the Torment Nexus https://twitter.com/alexblechman/status/1457842724128833538
A publication that promotes visions of futuristic technology as entertainment is now being DDOS'd by a futuristic technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's rather that developers don't want to work for idea people because they usually are not Steve Jobs, who is the exception to the rule.
And just like every profession there are idea people and people who think they are idea people. Unlike engineering, you can’t as easily make interview tests that pretend to be able to discern between those who are good at something and those that aren’t. Idea people are left to hitting a home run, succeeding and making a name for themselves. No one is going to hire a first timer into Chief Idea Officer. Paul’s letter…
This line makes your argument unfalsifiable, as if I bring any example of bad idea people, you could just state that they're not actually idea people but just people who think they are.
> Idea people are left to hitting a home run, succeeding and making a name for themselves. No one is going to hire a first timer into Chief Idea Officer.
Well yeah, I wouldn't hire a developer who hasn't developed anything either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statistically, yes. Infinite monkeys being as productive as they are, you'd eventually get Shakespeare out by accident.
Are the number of responses by ChatGPT to a given prompt infinite? I suppose that even monkeys at a typewriter can't produce an infinite number of different books, even if that number is really, really large (hello, Mr. Borges). But, I assumed (without a lot of subject matter knowledge) that the number of possible responses was actually much less than just randomly typing keys, because it's picking words from a frequ…
What's doubtful is whether the people attempting this are good enough writers themselves, or educated enough readers themselves, to recognize it when it falls into their hands. I suspect the Venn diagram for the two groups of people doesn't overlap all that much.
One of my favorite stories on Clarkesworld is "The Secret Life of Bots", by Suzanne Palmer: https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/palmer_09_17/ Does anyone think a LLM could write this?
Part 2 of the above story by Suzanne Palmer - https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/palmer_06_21/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>, which is how do you educate the market to recognize the "cost" of low quality Typically... pay them more. When I was broke quantity mattered more to me. Now that I have discretionary income I am far more selective. See Also: 'Boots Theory' of Socioeconomic Unfairness
That is an interesting theory. From the perspective of craftspeople I have met a few who are both "low income" and focus a lot on quality for their tools. Having it be part of their livelihood meant that the longer it lasted, the less often it would be replaced. But it is certainly true that places like Ross lean into the "look" is more important than the "quality" message.
It plays into exactly what you describe as being the more powerful motivator of the two. Though it does go both ways, you mention tools for lower income but expensive food (for higher income) is generally much higher quality.
I think it hinges on the industry and how obvious the quality is. Obviousness of quality requires a value-sense to be deeply thought out. Tools are not obviously higher quality, you have to think about it (the value of a dollar). Food is often obviously higher quality, and when it isn't its relatively inexpensive to discover (taco bell blows out your asshole, organic meats and veg make you feel more energetic).