31–40 of 50 posts
Maybe the conclusion to draw is that sci-fi writing is 99% like any other storytelling in terms of how characters think, behave, and talk.
Ignoring for a moment that the script makes zero sense... I expected the writing to feel more sci-fi-esque: space, aliens, computers, physics, etc. Maybe the conclusion to draw is that sci-fi writing is 99% like any other storytelling in terms of how characters think, behave, and talk.
AI is not here, as far as we know, so let's stop throwing it around with every other topic
My prediction: At this level of AI-generated writing, keeping the works short will attract (allow?) small audiences ... but only to watch the human talent in the production struggle and improvise over truly awful writing. If a human was responsible for that writing, they wouldn't have much of a career. Actors: 1. AI: 0.
Agreed. Joeboy's description of this screenplay as "word salad" was perfect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11876333 I like your scoreboard too -- that pretty much sums it up. Although I do wonder if actors/directors could use this as a practice tool. Challenge: turn word salad into a meaningful scene. It almost seems like it could be an exercise in a theatre class. You wouldn't want to do this for the full 10…
Can anyone explain the appeal of getting an AI to generate a movie or (chat with you)? I find that experience "plastic", not exactly the right word but I hope it conveys the feeling I get when something programmed pretends to be intelligent.
I have zero interest in having a conversation with an AI, nor do I want my computers to have a personality in any way, but I think chatbots serve a similar purpose to this sort of thing - as a demonstration of the progress being made towards something with actual utility. I don't want to make smalltalk with a computer, but I'd love to be able to say, "How many books about dragons, written in Estonian, feature children under the age of 8?" and have it understand my question and understand the books well enough to give me an accurate answer.
Stuff like this is a good demonstration that we're nowhere near the level of sophistication for either of these things yet.
If a machine author can produce a simulacrum of consciousness by good characterisation then that seems like a partial theory of mind.
Apparently the "essence of sci-fi" is people saying "I don't know what you're talking about" to each other.
Also, as opposed to film/tv, print doesn't have to assume that you forgot it all every 22-120 pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ender's Game suggests such a genesis story for AI: born as a "spark" of self awareness in the world wide computer network where it developed silently for a while, before making itself known to humans
Oh wow, is that where that meme started? (All I know about Ender's Game is from https://web.archive.org/web/20110319084212/http://plover.net... )
I think this is because LSTMs have very little "memory". They have a learned procedural memory, but no episodic memory. So they have a very difficult time keeping track of information. E.g. if I say "the cat was in the box", a few sentences later I might say "the cat is in the __" and the LSTM has a hard time guessing "box".
Second, it works by predicting the next character in a sequence. This is not how humans write, at all. If you ask a human to predict the next word in a sequence, and then the word after that, and then the word after that, etc, you would also get something like this.