41–50 of 456 posts
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
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
No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the…
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, which is the most amazing thing for anyone interested in producing work.
Ask any professional writer: revisions are a chore. Authors often say a novel is 10% writing, 90% rewriting, and they don’t enjoy the rewriting part.
So, IMO, contrary to your doomer take, I think we will see more people producing better work because they can focus on the parts they love and not do the grind that was only ever a necessary evil.
(The exception being those who love the grind and not the product)
> 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…
You're probably onto something, but then it's also nothing new that we attribute value to handmade goods over industrial goods. Because they're backed by storytelling (real or imagined), rare/exclusive, etc. It's clear that amidst a deluge of AI-generated content, audience urges for authenticity will rise. Attention is in more finite supply than content, has been even before generative AI; only so much will stick out…
> 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…
I imagine there'll be a lot more talk of the soul from a lot of techies from now on. Or at the least talk of the human touch from people who were erstwhile trying to get machines to automate everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the…
Using it to write vs. using it to help you are two very different things. For example: sometimes I will pass a paragraph through an LLM and ask it to return it in a more "active voice". Then I _manually_ edit my original paragraph, if I wish, to make it seem more suitable for my current goals. This is sort of like Photoshop for photographers.
> If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant. These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From consumer’s perspective they don’t care where it came from. In commercial setting(read: 99%) it’s always get stuff cheaper and better. AIGC fits both, the only better options is run faster than the waves and hope it don’t take you(i.e. “learn to code”) This is the “disruption” we tech and VC has been talking XR/Crypto/5g/metaverse is about. Except it came with large body counts for those who are directly impacted…
Somehow all this AI cannot break out of the advertising/spam mold it seems. All the billions made in high-value markets just cannot be reached so far.
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
Art will continue to evolve with AI. Another argument I keep hearing (most recently from pg), is that we'll always need non-AI training data. That, too, doesn't follow. Training new models on synthetic data does not mean we get stuck in a particular mode or style. We'll continue moving, improving, and trying wildly new things. Bootstrapping with synthetic data doesn't block evolution - it enables faster evolution, ev…
Artists, by and large, don't do art because they enjoy having art--they do art because they like /the process/ of producing art. If that process can be done faster and better by AI, then yeah, sure, they /might/ be able to still do art for a living (some artists will be able to leverage their experience to maintain an advantage; other, less flexible ones will lose work)--but the work they do will likely not be commensurate to the work they were doing before, and will likely be less enjoyable to them.
The thing that worries people about AI is that it'll make all creatives into middle-managers.
Your new mission as a human is to write is such a way that nobody suspects you are an LLM. When you are done writing, ask an LLM to write on the subject you have addressed, and if the output is similar, scrap yours and start over. If you need a badge to alert people to your humanity then you have been acting like a robot, a behavioral deficiency only you can correct.
I can't help but think that social networks and search engines will start to negatively rank AI generated text. In my opinion, this would impact many more people than we think.
> 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…
In other words, if there is truly no such thing as an "original idea", then how did the ideas that we are pulling from, deriving from and combining come into existence?
If all we are saying is that existing ideas inspire new ones, or that most human generated content is derivative, then I completely agree with you. I don't see how that proposition could be controversial at all.
But it seems to me that some people, at some points in time, somewhere have and will continue to contribute something original at least on occasion. Even if the "original" idea is 1% of the "intellectual product" and 99% is reusing existing concepts. To insist otherwise is to insist that we hit peak human innovation somewhere along the line and there's nowhere left to go.