251–260 of 456 posts
If there is such a way, someone please let me know.
A quote I heard recently that really resonated with me: "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available
The "writers" who can benefit from AI are not artists. They might be bloggers or journalists or researchers. But there is no way that a generative AI can produce, say, your memoir for you. How could it? You have to say what happened. Your life experience can't be generated. Ditto for any sort of novel above the level of the most basic imitative genre stuff. I'm certain AI could spit out a perfectly passable airport p…
I almost never use the prose word-for-word, but goodness is it helpful.
> If humans rely solely on AI to generate content moving forward, any new content generated by AI may just be recycled content from the past. To be honest, I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. I guess we are still better than AI at remixing sufficiently novel combinations of concepts but I think much of this AI content aversion comes from some kind of phobia, or an unwillingness…
The argument should be about capacity for creation, and to me AI generation just doesn't seem like true creation, but more of a cheap magic trick.
a lot of people in this thread seem to have no understanding that some people enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand. Every framing in here to the tune of “everyone will use AI” is nakedly utilitarian. Sometimes people pain pictures or write not just because they enjoy the act. Sometimes people paint pictures or write because they want to communicate; not everyone will feel like they’re communicating from th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think nearly everything you said is likely wrong. AI doesn’t “do everything for you” any more than word processors, music sequencers, or CAD does. AI allows people to operate at higher levels of abstraction, is all. Yes, fewer people will type repetitive copy in to word processors. But that’s fine. You are mistaking activity for productivity . Few people go into writing because they enjoy typing. AI offers leverage…
I dunno, I have a friend who has effectively automated her entire job at this point through ChatGPT, and her role would almost certainly disappear if her bosses were aware. Netflix also infamously used AI to generate background images for an anime, which is work that previously would have put food on the table for illustrators.[0] It's hard to look all of this and think that all the jobs are going to stick around. I…
Sooner or later studios will use it to leverage the work of their artist. If the same quality of animation requires half the staff to make it, some will use it as a cost reduction, others will use it to make better and more complex art. Maybe we'll finally get 60fps Anime instead of the 10 - 24 that is typical now. Your favorite series that was cancelled after a single because they didn't have budget, now they can make 5 season of it with the same budget.
funnily enough, it think this is a good development for our species. In the 2000s, if you were talking on the internet, you were pretty sure that you were talking to other humans. This will quickly reverse as in being sure that one is talking to AI most of the time on anything remote (internet, phone, email, ...) Which in turn will massively strengthen personal (like non-remote) face-to-face interactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a tool only when used as a tool, in the sense you're talking about. For example, I can write a sentence, and being a non-native English speaker, I can tell there's something wrong with it but I just can't place my finger. So I ask the AI to rephrase it for me. Now I can pick and choose an option from those the AI offered, or I can just keep my version if it turns out it's good enough. I feel this is an acceptab…
> Your DAW example would work if DAWs could generate samples, beats, and whole songs by the click of a button. But are you truly the author, then? They absolutely can, at least with 15-20 clicks rather than 1 at the moment. Drag in drum loop, drag in melodic loop, use Scaler2/Cthulhu/Captain Chords to come up with a chord progression, use a synthesizer preset to play the chords, drag in vocal sample, put on Ozone AI…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole idea of "there is no such thing as an original idea" is utterly stupid. It's just a hyperbole and some people are taking it literally. Of course there are original ideas. "C is not an original idea, because it's just mixing A and B..." ok so there are only two possbilities: 1. Someone else did mixing A and B before. Okay then we can recursively find the first person who mixed A and B. 2. No one else did mix…
> For some incomprehensible reasons, people seem to accept "mixing A and B is not a new idea because A and B already exist." Like... why? In copyright-law (and I think patents?), there is the Threshold of originality. Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Which IMHO comes down to how much of a and b can you still see in the mix, and how much did mixin…
> If humans rely solely on AI to generate content moving forward, any new content generated by AI may just be recycled content from the past. To be honest, I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. I guess we are still better than AI at remixing sufficiently novel combinations of concepts but I think much of this AI content aversion comes from some kind of phobia, or an unwillingness…
"A man with a new horse visited the hardware store in Dagwood last week to try and find a new hitching post for his stable."
That simple sentence has enough entropy that I can say, with confidence, that is has never been uttered by anyone in the history of human civilization.