Board 8 > Generative AI and the creative arts.

(+) Yeah! (+)

NeatoAnAccount posted...

Well obviously I'm talking about an LLM that's trained on case law and statutes and court filings and stuff. Like how Github Copilot is trained on codebases.

Im sure that would improve it, but the fundamental problem is that what an LLM is doing is just predicting the most likely next word to follow all of the previous words. Its much less of a problem if you have the expertise to double check its output, but thats presumably not the case in this scenario (where you dont know anything and the cost of messing up is high)z

LordoftheMorons posted...

Im sure that would improve it, but the fundamental problem is that what an LLM is doing is just predicting the most likely next word to follow all of the previous words. Its much less of a problem if you have the expertise to double check its output, but thats presumably not the case in this scenario (where you dont know anything and the cost of messing up is high)z

I don't think the current AI tech being capable is directly relevant to the point he's making unless you're trying to claim AI could never be capable of such tasks.

Example #3 out of 5: seeking much more control over the generative process and beginning to add my own human element.

Prompt #1: What is the hardest thing about writing a one-minute play?
[talks about having a complete story arc in one minute]

Prompt #2: What are ten outstanding examples of one-minute story arcs that could be told on stage?
[ten were generated, I picked #1 which seemed the easiest for two characters]

Prompt #3: We'll use the above prompt "A couple is arguing about a mundane household chore, but it quickly becomes clear that the real issue is their underlying resentment towards each other." What kind of people are the two in the couple most likely to be?
[five types of couples and problems were generated, I picked #4]

Prompt #4: Let's use the above character prompt "A couple who have different communication styles, with one being passive-aggressive and the other being confrontational, leading to misunderstandings and conflict" alongside the above plot-prompt "A couple is arguing about a mundane household chore, but it quickly becomes clear that the real issue is their underlying resentment towards each other." What are good names for these two characters?
[five names were generated, went with the third one]

Prompt #5: I liked the names Rachel and David. Please recap the plot and type of couple that David and Rachel are for this one-minute play.
[generates recap]

Prompt #6: Good. The title will be "Not Again." Rachel has the first line of dialogue, saying "Thank you for earlier, by the way." What are the ten best responses David can have in this play?
[ten were generated]

Prompts #7-#9: (each of these are variations of confirming the previous line and then asking "What are the ten best responses [Rachel/David] can have in this play?")

Prompt #10: David says "Of course I listen to you. Don't be ridiculous." What are the ten best responses Rachel can have in response in this play? Heighten the stakes and keep in mind this is near the half-way point of the play.

Prompt #11: Rachel says "I'm tired of feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall." What are the ten best responses David can have that are aloof and comedic in response in this play?
["it might not be appropriate to respond to Rachel's serious and emotionally charged statement with aloof or comedic responses" before then generating ten responses carrying on the previous tone]

Prompt #12: I want David to make a mistake with his next line. What are the ten best well-meaning lines David can mistakenly say in this play?
["While I would advise against intentionally writing a character's mistake, here are ten possible lines that David could say with good intentions but that might inadvertently make things worse:"]

Prompt #13: David says "Maybe we should just forget about this and move on. I hate fighting." What are the ten best responses Rachel can have in response in this play?

Prompt #14: Rachel says "I hate fighting too, but I hate feeling like I'm not being heard even more." What are three clever options for ways to end this play and still keep this story within the one-minute play format?

Prompt #15: Let's use your #2 ending: "Rachel looks at David for a long moment, then sighs and says, "You know what? Let's just drop it for now. We can talk about it later." David nods, relieved, and they both start to relax. As they exit the stage, we hear them chatting amiably about something else." I want David to ask if she would like for him to cook dinner tonight at the end of the play. Format the above story into the proper format for a one-minute play.

Title: "Not Again"
Characters: Rachel and David
Setting: A living room
Time: Present day
Rachel: Thank you for earlier, by the way.
David: I don't know what you're thanking me for, but I'm glad I could help.
Rachel: I'm starting to wonder if you even listen to me anymore.
David: Of course I listen to you. Don't be ridiculous.
Rachel: I'm tired of feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall.
David: Maybe we should just forget about this and move on. I hate fighting.
Rachel: I hate fighting too, but I hate feeling like I'm not being heard even more.
David: (sighs) You're right. Let's talk about it later.
Rachel: (nods) Okay.
David: Hey, would you like me to cook dinner tonight?
Rachel: (smiling) Sure, that sounds great.
(They exit the stage, chatting amiably.)
End of play.

Is this mine yet? Is this art yet?

Example 4 out of 5: I've written half of this one.

Prompt #1: I've got half of a play. Can you help me finish it?
["Of course! I'd be happy to help you finish your play. Can you please provide me with more information on what you've already written, what you want the play to be about, and any specific help you need? That way, I can assist you better."]

Prompt #2: WHO SPITTED ON MY BISCUITS
a one-minute play
based on a true story

[Lights rise -- it's Earth, but an unknown year. Carmichael McMango takes off his astronaut helmet to prepare for his biscuits and gravy. Horace the velociraptor slides that plate with his tail to Carmichael as she smiles in anticipation. A window is open by the stove.]

HORACE: Best. Breakfast. Ever.

CARMICHAEL: Thanks babe. You know my favorites like nobody's business.

HORACE: And now that I have my favorite fork back, it's time to dig in.

CARMICHAEL: Mmmmmmmmmm, enjoy.

[Carmichael's eyes widen after his first bite.]

HORACE: Is it good?

[Carmichael spits it out.]

CARMICHAEL: WHOA, EXCUSE ME BUT WHO SPITTTED ON MY BISCUITS?!

[Horace gasps.]

["I love the start of your play! Based on what you've shared, it seems like you have a fun and unique premise to work with. Here's a possible continuation of your play:" It then generated the other half of the play.]

Prompt #3: We need a stronger role for women in this show. Horace needs more control of her life than waiting on biscuit-approval. It's funny how spit sounds like a dirty work -- keep that -- but also the word "spitted" needs to be used more.

[Lights rise -- it's Earth, but an unknown year. Carmichael McMango takes off his astronaut helmet to prepare for his biscuits and gravy. Horace the velociraptor is busy cooking in the kitchen. A window is open by the stove.]
HORACE: Breakfast is almost ready, Carmichael. Just a few more minutes.
CARMICHAEL: [smiling] You're the best, Horace. I can't wait.
HORACE: [proudly] I used the special spice blend that you like.
[Carmichael takes a bite of her biscuit and nods approvingly.]
CARMICHAEL: [chewing] Mmm, this is delicious, Horace. You've really outdone yourself.
HORACE: [smiling] I'm glad you like it.
[Carmichael's eyes widen after her next bite.]
CARMICHAEL: [spitting out her biscuit] Whoa, excuse me, but who spitted on my biscuits?!
[Horace looks shocked and hurt.]
HORACE: [defensive] I did not spit on your biscuits! I put my heart and soul into making them perfect.
CARMICHAEL: [apologetic] I'm sorry, Horace. I didn't mean to accuse you. It's just that it tasted like someone spat on it.
[Just then, a small, green alien with tentacles and big, googly eyes crawls in through the open window.]
ALIEN: [chirping] Hi there! I'm Zorblax, and I come in peace.
HORACE: [confused] Who are you, and what do you want?
ZORBLAX: [excitedly] I am an intergalactic food critic, and I have come to sample the culinary delights of your planet!
CARMICHAEL: [intrigued] That sounds fascinating. Would you like to try some of our biscuits?
ZORBLAX: [eagerly] Yes, please!
[HORACE serves Zorblax a biscuit, and Zorblax takes a bite.]
ZORBLAX: [disgusted] Ugh, what is this? It tastes like someone spat on it!
[CARMICHAEL and HORACE exchange a knowing look.]
HORACE: [firmly] That's enough, Zorblax. We take great pride in our cooking, and we won't tolerate disrespect.
CARMICHAEL: [nodding] You can leave now.
[Zorblax scurries out of the window as HORACE and CARMICHAEL exchange a high-five.]
HORACE: [proudly] That's what happens when you mess with my biscuits!
[CARMICHAEL smiles and takes another bite of her biscuit.]
CARMICHAEL: [chewing] Mmm, it's even better now that we've put that alien in their place.
HORACE: [smiling] Glad you like it, babe.
[The lights fade to black.]

I started off as the writer. Did I concede my right to full ownership asking for help on the other half from AI, making me the co-writer now? Did it change too much of what I had at the beginning, losing my right to any ownership? Did I just grow my amount of ownership from half of a one-minute play to a full one-minute play?

I tried to trip up the AI too, but it seemed to navigate around the little landmines I left for it.

Example 5 out of 5: I have a one-minute play and sought for AI-assistance on rewriting it.

One of these versions below is my own. One of these versions below is AI-recommended after six prompts of me following up on advice it offered. Those topics included how to develop the characters, add conflict, tighten up the dialogue, and clarify the message.

ALYX: I never realized the risks you took for us to date.
KRYS: We met at a protest, not a minefield.
ALYX: A 2020 protest though, plus you still had to sneak away from your parents.
KRYS: That was the actual minefieldhad to tip-toe my way out.
ALYX: You also had an essay due the day after we met, right?
KRYS: Yeah, kinda gambled with my DACA scholarship.
ALYX: But we had fun when you weren't being so anxious.
KRYS: Just couldn't tell my boss why I was so tired the next morning.
ALYX: See? Busy bee living that risky life.
KRYS: I suppoooooooooooose.
ALYX: Hey, can I ask you something?
KRYS: Yes, and then pizza.
ALYX: Does being a Dreamer add much risk? I just, uhnever thought to ask you sooner.
[Krys smiles.]
KRYS: You still dont realize the risks I take. All cheese, please!

ALYX: I never realized the risks you took for us to date.
KRYS: Yeah, it was a wild ride.
ALYX: We met at a protest, right?
KRYS: Yeah, I had to tip-toe my way out of a minefield just to be there.
ALYX: And you had an essay due the day after we met?
KRYS: Yeah, I gambled with my DACA scholarship a little bit.
ALYX: But we had fun, right?
KRYS: Definitely, even though I was anxious about everything.
ALYX: I guess being a Dreamer adds a lot of risk to your life, huh?
KRYS: You have no idea. But it's worth it to fight for what I believe in.
ALYX: I support you, always.
KRYS: Thanks. You know, sometimes it feels like no one cares about the challenges we face.
ALYX: I care. And I know there are a lot of people who do too.
KRYS: I hope so. Because we need all the support we can get.
[They smile at each other, then turn to order pizza.]

Do I now have two versions of this script or just one? Is it ethical to use any of the edits the generated script shows? I liked some of the questions from my follow-up prompts more than the actual rewrite here -- is it ethical for me use that feedback to inspire my own original writing? And because my curiosity is strong, which one is better?

Okay I'm done making examples, just thought these might help provide anchors for conversation if we were looking to get more concrete.

KamikazePotato posted...

Honestly every argument I've ever read in favor of AI art has always come across as some weird attempt at a 'gotcha'. Like people cannot seriously believe that inputting commands into a prompt counts as making art. There cannot be this complete fundamental divide on a facet of human culture and the intent behind meaningful works. Either they haven't thought about it very hard or they just don't appreciate art in the same way other people do.

It's weird to me. I truly don't want to see writers replaced by AI and regularly believe human art beats AI art because AI struggles to look back theories and patterns to find humanity and entertainment. I agree with your general feeling -- I just spent almost four hours playing with prompts to share five examples here to help find the levels of grayness in this conversation. I never really felt like I was creating during that time, just like...crafting. I don't know that the feeling matters as much as the action here, right, but I don't want to ignore the feeling is different.

Also though, if I look past the broadest feelings of "I am making art and not just words," there are things under the hood that are murky. One example is when is it okay to take a suggestion? If you are getting a play produced with a theatre and you take a suggestion an actor has for changing a line, you did not just lose your ownership of the written work -- they are getting paid by their theatre (ideally, rabble rabble). Similar thing over lessons you learn from the rehearsal process and feedback you get from talkback sessions. If you carry that philosophy over to generative AI models, in that sense, it fits a similar mold and can be seen as just about the same.

But I think you and I are on a similar page in that it doesn't feel the same. It's still machinery at work for instant answers, and that is still weird.

I dunno. I feel like a lot of this conversation comes down to how much people need inspiration behind their content. I think having an inspiration is truly the better way to go and I'm not FULLY impressed with its generative abilities in creating one-minute plays here, but I do like how it poses feedback to me when I seek feedback on existing work. Does that diminish my original inspirations? Does that turn my original work into something less ethical? Can you get truly inspired after starting with a generated answer first? It's a messy conversation.

Johnbobb posted...

if you're profiting off of it or using it to build reputation as an artist, I'd lean against it 95% of the time

What does that 5% look like for you?

Getting inspiration for something is very different than machine automation, and while there is some grey area it's way less nebulous than AI pushers would have people believe. Even before AI copying stuff existed, people who plagiarized writing or traced over artwork were rightfully condemned. There wasn't any discourse or hand-wringing about it except in very rare instances.

Jakyl25 posted...

These questions always boil down to me as fundamentally should we put harnesses on the potential of the universe to preserve human dignity? Which is tough to answer.

As someone with no dignity myself, I chose option 4

squexa posted...

I keep seeing these discussions in relation to art, but not other topics, even though artists aren't arguably even the most directly affected.

Is it ethical to use a customer service AI chatbot based on ChatGPT/Bard/etc that replaced a bunch of human operators? What about using a law office that replaced most of their paralegals/legal assistants with AI? What about using a website that makes money by using AI (trained on potentially non-open source/copyrighted material) to give targeted ads to its users?

Is it specifically art that people have ethical concerns about or do some people think AI (or AI trained on non-open source material) in general is unethical?

The concerns are far broader than just art, and I have wondered for years about how cut-throat call centers will get when the technology allows it to shrink their industry back down. I just know theatre better than call centers and know I'm not teaching anything soon on how it's affecting call centers, thus the focus in this topic.

While my personal interest is not always in getting more and more powerful -- I don't like it in guns and cars -- I'm usually the minority in this point and don't really expect society to go backwards there. So, to that point...it becomes an interesting question of when we choose to use it and when we don't.

GuessMyUserName posted...

I can't see the argument that these implementations will create more opportunities when there are blatant cases like these where you're fundamentally getting rid of the need for actors. You can say oh they still have to manipulate the AI's voice just right but that's already a thing directors do guiding talents so what's actually added? and AI can certainly refine that to require less and less work

I agree this will lead to fewer humans being hired. Humans will still be hired and there will be jobs built around working with the AI, but I do suspect there will be a numbers-impact...and we're just a few months into the tech reaching the public like this, too. Smartphones came out fifteen years ago and now they check your heart-rate. The video game industry returned almost forty years ago with the NES, and now we have virtual reality. Movies have gone from Citizen Kane to Everything Everywhere All At Once. Part of that's to say the future is unpredictable, but also part of that's to say technology usually just gets better which I expect AI to do too.

Using an AI to get inspiration isn't inspiration. It totally skips the step of inspiration. I'm not saying ideas come from nothing but to me there's a distinct difference between reading/viewing a text and asking a computer to generate one for you.

The question of ethics is never precise enough. Which ethics exactly?

We have plenty of software now that crawls through large amount of other people's data to help you out, like Google and autocomplete. You can also be an artist and directly take from other styles. We largely agree that this is not a big deal, as long as you cite your sources. The new AIs are terrible at that (Bing is trying to get there but it's still bad). This is plagiarism ethics.

Then there's the socioeconomic ethics. Jobs will change, some will lose, some will benefit, how does that affect them, how does that ripple across the entire economy, etc.

The real issue though is, imagine if aliens came from space and gave us a magical box that did the same thing as Midjourney, and the aliens also gave all previous artists $5 mil so they never had to work again. Can people now use the magical box and call themselves artists without an ethical issue? I think people would still feel like something was stolen there, since people feel that the struggle of practicing and creating art is synonymous with humanity itself. The mere existence of this box is a threat to humanity. This is artistry ethics and everything eventually comes down to this.

Problem is that we've been reducing the struggle of art using tech forever. At every step the "defend humanity" sentiment has come out. Photoshop has had AI functions for years, tools that are trained on others' art, and other kinds of automatic algorithms. That's its entire value. But our generation is quite accustomed to those tools since we still perceive that it requires lots of artistry to make something good. That was obviously not always the case, there were big controversies in the past too

colliding posted...

Using an AI to get inspiration isn't inspiration. It totally skips the step of inspiration. I'm not saying ideas come from nothing but to me there's a distinct difference between reading/viewing a text and asking a computer to generate one for you.

Counterpoint: there was a period a few years ago where I asked people for titles to plays they would want to see. I then wrote those plays out into ten-minute formats. Was I not inspired when I asked for titles? Do people giving me those titles not count as inspiration from them to me? Does that make my plays that came from this uninspired?

Going a little further here, but a friend of mine later did a similar thing except he asked his friends for both a title and a basic plot for the story. He then wrote those stories. Was he not inspired when he asked for titles and plots? Do people giving him those titles and plot ideas not count as inspiration from them to him? Does that make his plays that came from this uninspired?

Are these situations inherently different from asking generative AI models for titles and plots?

foolm0r0n posted...

The real issue though is, imagine if aliens came from space and gave us a magical box that did the same thing as Midjourney, and the aliens also gave all previous artists $5 mil so they never had to work again. Can people now use the magical box and call themselves artists without an ethical issue? I think people would still feel like something was stolen there, since people feel that the struggle of practicing and creating art is synonymous with humanity itself. The mere existence of this box is a threat to humanity. This is artistry ethics and everything eventually comes down to this.

I generally agree here, though I would note the artists are still free -- in fact freer than ever in this example -- to make art. Their competition would be steeper than ever since on top of the world's writers you now have AI content both competing for audience's attention and filling up gatekeeper's inboxes...but also in a world where they did not have to focus on money anymore, their focus on art does not inherently get lost in that.

foolm0r0n posted...

Problem is that we've been reducing the struggle of art using tech forever. At every step the "defend humanity" sentiment has come out. Photoshop has had AI functions for years, tools that are trained on others' art, and other kinds of automatic algorithms. That's its entire value. But our generation is quite accustomed to those tools since we still perceive that it requires lots of artistry to make something good. That was obviously not always the case, there were big controversies in the past too

Agreed. Is this big AI controversy fundamentally different from ones in the past though?

HaRRicH posted...

Agreed. Is this big AI controversy fundamentally different from ones in the past though?

Only in the sense that it's possibly a new form of intelligence, which is not something people care about that much. The moral and economic issues are much bigger focuses, and those are completely standard tech issues.

foolm0r0n posted...

The real issue though is, imagine if aliens came from space and gave us a magical box that did the same thing as Midjourney, and the aliens also gave all previous artists $5 mil so they never had to work again. Can people now use the magical box and call themselves artists without an ethical issue? I think people would still feel like something was stolen there, since people feel that the struggle of practicing and creating art is synonymous with humanity itself. The mere existence of this box is a threat to humanity. This is artistry ethics and everything eventually comes down to this.

Why? If art is about the creation process then this box should not threaten art at all, and if art is about the result then it will not matter if it's made with this box or by a human.

Found an excellent video from March that, by virtue of being recorded five days before GPT-4 released, may already be out of date.

This is much more about the big picture of AI than just writers, but some stuff still seemed relevant:

https://youtu.be/xoVJKj8lcNQ

"First contact was curation AI. Second contact: creation AIgenerative models, all that."

"The last time we had non-humans creating persuasive narrative and myth was the advent of religion."

Graph: ChatGPT reached 100,000,000 users in two months. For comparison, the next fastest service to reach that milestone was Instagram at about two and a half years.

Graph: "AI Develops Theory of Mind" bar graph: none in 2018, barely in 2019, like a four year old in 2020, ??? In 2021, like a seven year old in January 2022, and like a nine year old in November 2022. AI experts just found out in February 2023 AI has theory of mind.

WHAT IS THEORY OF MIND ACCORDING TO POPULARMECHANICS.COM: The ability to impute the mental state of others would greatly improve AI's ability to interact and communicate with humans (and each other), and enable it to develop other abilities that rely on Theory of Mind, such as empathy, moral judgment, or self-consciousness.

UF8 posted...

do people view commissioners as artists is the real question

MZero posted...

This is more like commissioning someone to make a logo and then claiming you made it

Rereading the topic, I think I overlooked these posts...this is a fair argument. I've got commissioned art, and it is obvious to both me and the artist that I did not create art in commissioning it. Generative AI feels similar, minus me financially paying the right to ask for it or call it my own. One of the pieces is digital art and I bought full permission for whatever edits I want with it, but I never have enough to envision saying I now created that art -- I just edited it. I also have a painting that is just obviously not my own work when I asked for it.

Still looking for the gray areas here though...how much must I paint over the painting before I can call it my own? Probably can't just paint my name at the bottom, probably can't just trace over it or paint by numbers over it. Can I reenvision the same image in a different way -- this realistic-looking oak tree now has a cartoon palm tree painted over it in the same canvas, for example? Can I even use that canvas at all for anything anymore?

Similarly tying it back to writing with AI, can I change every line enough to follow plagiarism laws and call it my own? Can I change every single word but keep the same story and call it my own? Once the act of copying and pasting is done, is there ANYTHING that can done to it that allows you to be the creative author anymore?

pyresword posted...

Well you've cut out the part of my post which I was actually trying to say something with. You can train an AI using things that aren't stolen or misappropriated for that purpose.

Fair point, but in my defense people generally aren't doing that to the extent I forgot that was possible >_>

Is there a single AI that isn't trained on stolen art? Legitimate question.

pyresword posted...

Why? If art is about the creation process then this box should not threaten art at all, and if art is about the result then it will not matter if it's made with this box or by a human.

The idea is it's both obv

HaRRicH posted...

Still looking for the gray areas here though...how much must I paint over the painting before I can call it my own? Probably can't just paint my name at the bottom, probably can't just trace over it or paint by numbers over it. Can I reenvision the same image in a different way -- this realistic-looking oak tree now has a cartoon palm tree painted over it in the same canvas, for example? Can I even use that canvas at all for anything anymore?

A closer analogy would be the art director of an animation, like Miyazaki. He's not the one drawing the final movie frames, his huge team of artists is. Does that mean he's not the artist of that animation?

foolm0r0n posted...

A closer analogy would be the art director of an animation, like Miyazaki. He's not the one drawing the final movie frames, his huge team of artists is. Does that mean he's not the artist of that animation?

I would say he's the director and overall visionary, but he is quite literally not the artist if he's not drawing it himself. If it takes a whole team of people to bring a vision to life, then it doesn't belong to one person. The artists behind animation, CG, VFX etc could all use a lot more credit than they get!

I see it that way but I think the standard view is opposite

foolm0r0n posted...

The idea is it's both obv

Then let me frame it a different way.

Is the human process of creation an essential component of art?

If yes-->This hypothetical box does not threaten art because it does not involve a human creative process and is therefore a separate thing from art.

If no-->This box does not threaten art because it itself produces art.

That said I think you're actually arguing that this hypothetical threatens the ability of humans to pursue artistry as a way of life, which is very clearly true and I just don't think that matters enough.

pyresword posted...

Then let me frame it a different way.

Is the human process of creation an essential component of art?

If yes-->This hypothetical box does not threaten art because it does not involve a human creative process and is therefore a separate thing from art.

If no-->This box does not threaten art because it itself produces art.

Is this hypothetical included in a real world scenario? Because in a capitalist society, artists rely on their art to make a living. When AI-created stuff inevitably becomes the dominant force in creative endeavors, art will largely cease to exist, because people need money to survive.

What I'm saying is that one of the scenarios will hold:

1. If human-created art is meaningfully distinguishable from ai-created art then human-created art will not cease to exist because there will still be demand for human-created art

2. If human-created art is not meaningfully distinguishable from ai-created art, then human-created art may cease to exist, but this is not a significant loss to the human race overall because ai-created art will exist as an indistinguishable replacement.

Art isn't a black box devoid of the context it's created in. Part of what makes art special is because it was created by a human. For example - when an author writes a story, they put parts of themselves into that story, unintentionally or otherwise. When they weave plots and character together, they're trying to tell you something, or make you feel something. It becomes something of a dialogue between artist and creator. That context is completely lost with AI. Even if an AI chatbot wrote the exact same story as a human being, I would still derive significantly less enjoyment from reading the AI version.

Otherwise, you don't want art. You just want content in order to kill time.

On a personal level I agree with that, and what I'm trying to argue is that as long as there are enough people that feel the same way, then those people will continue to seek out human-created art and human artists will continue creating art.

The amount of art created will significantly reduce, though, and it will be relegated mostly to people with disposable income or those few who are willing to put the starving in starving artist. Lots of stories will go untold that could have been otherwise. I also think the proliferation of AI content will demoralize a lot of artists - it's already hard enough to reach people as-is without AI content taking up more social space.

There will be people who like the humanity of it all and seek that, same way people buy hand-wittled soup ladles or whatever.

The far more important distinction though with human art is kind of hard to find a metaphor for, since it's a unique problem of the current moment: Human art is creation.

Right now AIs by definition cannot produce anything outside of their mathematical space. It's an unbelievably huge space, but once you train the model, that's it. You've defined a box that it plays within. And that box is fully defined by humans, since it's fully trained on human output. Humans so far are the only ones who are able to actually create new things that are outside that box.

So if you believe AI is truly valuable and the stronger it gets, the more it can help the world, then humans NEED to keep producing real intelligent output to continue training the AIs. But if humans relegate creation to the AIs because it's so much easier, that stops. The AIs will then only be trained on AI output, which was trained on AI output, etc. A couple generations go by and we forget how to create, then it's over.

It's a very real possibility that the AI models of the 2020s will be the strongest in all of history. Future ones will be 1000x cheaper and faster, but not more intelligent.

foolm0r0n posted...

The AIs will then only be trained on AI output, which was trained on AI output, etc. A couple generations go by and we forget how to create, then it's over.

Are you predicting a WALL-E/Idiocracy future?

Well idiocracy is the present. WALL-E requires intelligent robots which is orders of magnitude harder than software AI, so I dunno, maybe in 100 years.

I competed at a storytelling competition today. My story was about birds and their bullshit. It didn't win anything. Sad day!

So, I put the story into ChatGPT for analyzing its feedback. Some of it makes sense, but some of it just shows how little it "gets."

1. "For example: "Clarity: Some parts of the story are unclear or confusing. For example, it's not clear why the protagonist was attacked by the goose in the first anecdote. Consider providing more context and details to make the story clearer."

ChatGPT has never faced a goose head-on before. It has much to learn.

One bump.

KamikazePotato posted...

Art isn't a black box devoid of the context it's created in. Part of what makes art special is because it was created by a human. For example - when an author writes a story, they put parts of themselves into that story, unintentionally or otherwise. When they weave plots and character together, they're trying to tell you something, or make you feel something. It becomes something of a dialogue between artist and creator. That context is completely lost with AI. Even if an AI chatbot wrote the exact same story as a human being, I would still derive significantly less enjoyment from reading the AI version.

Otherwise, you don't want art. You just want content in order to kill time.

This is a major reason why I find myself drawn to reading fanfiction over commercial fiction more and more lately. It feels like a more pure, artistic experience than a lot of the safe stuff that gets by the editing staff of the big publishers. I guess that might sound hopelessly pretentious to some, but I think on a board where indie games have as big a following as here, some of you might see how the situations can be similar.

And in at least some fanfiction communities, its quite possible to have a literal dialogue with the authors about their works. Some of them are very appreciative of this, and it feels good to be able to give back to amateurs in even a small way like this when money is off the table.

Fortunately AI is very good at generating satisfying dialogue, so it can replace those authors too

foolm0r0n posted...

Fortunately AI is very good at generating satisfying dialogue, so it can replace those authors too

Perhaps we should just replace everyone with AIs.

WindWhistler posted...

Perhaps we should just replace everyone with AIs.

Yes!

Counterpoint: no

imagine not needing to post on B8 because you have an AI of yourself that can do it for you

imagine training an AI on all of ertyu's posts and giving it control of the nuclear codes