Chatbots are not the future

Post by jhbadger » Mon, May 01, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #26

autokad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing artists are going to go away, just that story telling is going to become a lot easier. it also doesn't mean the content produced is necessarily painted with 'broad strokes' and absolutely doesn't mean its soulless. It means the barriers to entry for producing stories just came down a whole lot - akin to the printing press did for books.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

Post by hammyhavoc » Mon, May 01, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

jutrewag wrote: post #44

hammyhavoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…

Procedural generation is miles away from what these LLMs are doing. It’s not just coming up with a random maze/map for a fetch mission. Right now, it can generate a novel quest, with all of its characters, come up with a unique set of mission goals and theoretically generate those assets and characters (atleast in 2D). Turns out, all this self-expression or whatever is cheap.

Post by hammyhavoc » Mon, May 01, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

jhbadger wrote: post #71

JohnFen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

In the early days of Pixar, some traditionalist animators claimed that Pixar was "cheating" because they used 3D modelling tools rather than physically drawing the frames. The traditionalists didn't see computer animation as a "tool"; they saw it as the computer doing the work of the animator. Were they right? Computers make making things easier. But the human using the computer is the real creator.

Post by tekni5 » Mon, May 01, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

Post by renewiltord » Mon, May 01, 2023, 10:17 PM UTC

starmftronajoll wrote: post #63

anonylizard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? For a writer, if you write out a plot, you can get the AI to actually simulate the character's responses and dialogue (even voiced by AI!). There, you've LITERALLY brought a character to life, each character is driven by a different persona simulated by a different AI, the quality of stories that will create, will annihilate what came before. You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable.…

Perhaps the resolution to your cognitive dissonance is not to conclude that artists hate art. Instead I’d suggest that often, artists’ love of art doesn’t stem from concepts like “annihilating what came before” or “outcompeting hard.” Perhaps, like the parent comment said, it comes from self-expression — the pleasure, for both creator and audience, of the “mirage created by the writer,” to borrow your poetic term.