Ted, what a great set of predictions. A few years ago I warned my publishers that they might be facing heavy competition from AI novelists, or novelists using AI as a production tool. I imagined AI publishers setting up noms de plume for nonexistent authors, flooding the market with derivative stories that are every bit is good (or bad) …
Ted, what a great set of predictions. A few years ago I warned my publishers that they might be facing heavy competition from AI novelists, or novelists using AI as a production tool. I imagined AI publishers setting up noms de plume for nonexistent authors, flooding the market with derivative stories that are every bit is good (or bad) as ninety-five percent of romance, fantasy , and science-fiction novels made by humans. They brushed if off, saying they'd thought about that already. It'll never happen. People can tell the difference. Well, can they? If they don't have the critical skills to tell art from junk right now, how would they be able to tell it in an AI future? I do believe that most people would turn away from art if they knew a machine had made it. But what if they couldn't tell the difference? Would they ever develop the necessary critical skills to discriminate between the two? Or would they simply lose interest in art? Please talk me down from the ledge.
You're in my power alley when you mention SF. Luckily I have around two hundred SF novels (to accompany seven or eight hundred reference, history, art, architecture, etc. books in my home. Since the aughts I've only read a couple of dozen SF novels that were either entertaining, or had illuminating new concepts, most are simply woke diatribes telling me I'm to blame for the end of the world. So I'll continue to re-read the great old stuff I still own.
Maybe you can step of the ledge and venture into the pre-digital world. Best of luck.
Have you got 'Couriers-Off Grid' by Jay Swanson. Published 2018 sadly not available right now. Definitely written by a person,not AI. In just two years w went from sci-fi dystopia to "our real life". The author may not even have intended it to be SO RELEVANT. Theme of book (in my interpretation) who runs Society,the tech elite or the 'non-tech' ordinary people. An Elite with Tech feel it is their hereditary right to "be in charge"....
Unfortunately, I haven't read it. I think I've only bought one SF book by a new author since the 1990s, Wesley Chu's "Time Salvager." I picked it up at Dollar Tree for a buck, best money I've spent on a book. I'd like to read the sequel, "Time Siege" if I can get a copy somewhere. The problem is that I'm currently trying to read and dispose of books. I don't want my boys to have to deal with so many when I kick the bucket. I will definitely see if I can find Swanson's book. Hopefully I'll have better luck.
Have a look round. It may not be Booker prize level but the idea at least partially explored is interesting and now,and possibly not even an intention of the author is a real thing here in the world we live in .
I’m really curious to understand why you think the limitations of AI right now would imply limitations for what AI could do in the future?
It seems to me your suggesting because a toddler can’t speak it will never speak when it grows up. It seems a bit of an old kind of reasoning?
To be fair, I can sort of understand how you might come to that conclusion. I’ve met plenty of human adults that babble like toddlers so it’s easy to believe that that might be the case for AI.
The problem is that’s not actually the case and the rate of which AI can learn things far passes what any human can do.
That also means AI can learn terrible things much faster than humans can as well it’s very much garbage and garbage out with AI and humans.
The AI can actually progress faster than humans and leave us far behind so I’m a little confused by your logic. It doesn’t quite seem to add up?
Pranath, there's a 100% chance I'm babbling like a toddler myself. I certainly don't think AI has reached its pinnacle. It's pretty much the opposite. My worry is that it'll continue to improve, and in doing so will lower our expectations of art—all art. Books, movies, music, theatre, photography, cooking, even business. Good art will probably survive, but I'm guessing it'll be forced to the edges and end up a counterculture pursuit, while AI floods the marketplace with the cultural equivalent of junk food. In this case, who wins and who loses?
Thanks for explaining. I see what you mean and yes, I would actually agree with you. This is a reasonable assessment and we need to be more aware of this.
If anything, I do worry about the lack of nuance and informed debate in the public about this .
This technology is going to hit the general public more and more who are lesson less prepared but really not a great situation
Ted, what a great set of predictions. A few years ago I warned my publishers that they might be facing heavy competition from AI novelists, or novelists using AI as a production tool. I imagined AI publishers setting up noms de plume for nonexistent authors, flooding the market with derivative stories that are every bit is good (or bad) as ninety-five percent of romance, fantasy , and science-fiction novels made by humans. They brushed if off, saying they'd thought about that already. It'll never happen. People can tell the difference. Well, can they? If they don't have the critical skills to tell art from junk right now, how would they be able to tell it in an AI future? I do believe that most people would turn away from art if they knew a machine had made it. But what if they couldn't tell the difference? Would they ever develop the necessary critical skills to discriminate between the two? Or would they simply lose interest in art? Please talk me down from the ledge.
How can anyone talk you down when most of us are on the ledge with you?
You're in my power alley when you mention SF. Luckily I have around two hundred SF novels (to accompany seven or eight hundred reference, history, art, architecture, etc. books in my home. Since the aughts I've only read a couple of dozen SF novels that were either entertaining, or had illuminating new concepts, most are simply woke diatribes telling me I'm to blame for the end of the world. So I'll continue to re-read the great old stuff I still own.
Maybe you can step of the ledge and venture into the pre-digital world. Best of luck.
Have you got 'Couriers-Off Grid' by Jay Swanson. Published 2018 sadly not available right now. Definitely written by a person,not AI. In just two years w went from sci-fi dystopia to "our real life". The author may not even have intended it to be SO RELEVANT. Theme of book (in my interpretation) who runs Society,the tech elite or the 'non-tech' ordinary people. An Elite with Tech feel it is their hereditary right to "be in charge"....
Unfortunately, I haven't read it. I think I've only bought one SF book by a new author since the 1990s, Wesley Chu's "Time Salvager." I picked it up at Dollar Tree for a buck, best money I've spent on a book. I'd like to read the sequel, "Time Siege" if I can get a copy somewhere. The problem is that I'm currently trying to read and dispose of books. I don't want my boys to have to deal with so many when I kick the bucket. I will definitely see if I can find Swanson's book. Hopefully I'll have better luck.
Have a look round. It may not be Booker prize level but the idea at least partially explored is interesting and now,and possibly not even an intention of the author is a real thing here in the world we live in .
What "Ledge" ?
You'll know it when you're on it.
Not exactly what I was getting at. 99% of this is total BS. Loosing your job ?Ya, bad.
98% of the rest - you have to participate in all the BS already
I’m really curious to understand why you think the limitations of AI right now would imply limitations for what AI could do in the future?
It seems to me your suggesting because a toddler can’t speak it will never speak when it grows up. It seems a bit of an old kind of reasoning?
To be fair, I can sort of understand how you might come to that conclusion. I’ve met plenty of human adults that babble like toddlers so it’s easy to believe that that might be the case for AI.
The problem is that’s not actually the case and the rate of which AI can learn things far passes what any human can do.
That also means AI can learn terrible things much faster than humans can as well it’s very much garbage and garbage out with AI and humans.
The AI can actually progress faster than humans and leave us far behind so I’m a little confused by your logic. It doesn’t quite seem to add up?
Pranath, there's a 100% chance I'm babbling like a toddler myself. I certainly don't think AI has reached its pinnacle. It's pretty much the opposite. My worry is that it'll continue to improve, and in doing so will lower our expectations of art—all art. Books, movies, music, theatre, photography, cooking, even business. Good art will probably survive, but I'm guessing it'll be forced to the edges and end up a counterculture pursuit, while AI floods the marketplace with the cultural equivalent of junk food. In this case, who wins and who loses?
Thanks for explaining. I see what you mean and yes, I would actually agree with you. This is a reasonable assessment and we need to be more aware of this.
If anything, I do worry about the lack of nuance and informed debate in the public about this .
This technology is going to hit the general public more and more who are lesson less prepared but really not a great situation
AI masters will win. Envision Amazon moving into AI generated books, cutting off all writers and publishers.
It's already happened with the Spotify grift, billions of listens to AI generated songs.