Sure, but human-written shit still had that human touch. It could be unintentionally funny, it could be a mixed bag that reaches unexpected heights at times. AI writing is just the bland kind of bad, not the interesting kind of bad.

All your base are belong to us.

I remember reading a longer post on lemmy. The person was describing their slow realization that the political beliefs they were raised with were leading down a dark path. It was a process that took many years, and the story was full of little moments where cracks in his world view widened and the seed of doubt grew.

And someone who was bored/overwhelmed with having to read a post over three sentences long fed the story into AI to make a short summary. They then posted that summary as a “fixed your post, bro” moment. So basically all the humanity removed. Reminds me of that famous “If the Gettysburg Address were a PowerPoint” https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/

That means in about 6 months or so the AI content quality will be about an 8/10. The processors spread machine “learning” incredibly fast. Some might even say exponentially fast. Pretty soon it’ll be like that old song “If you wonder why your letters never get a reply, when you tell me that you love me, I want to see you write it”. “Letters” is an old version of one-on-one tweeting, but with no character limit.

This sounds like it takes away a huge amount of creative freedom from the writers if the AI is specifying the framework. It’d be like letting the AI write the plot, but then having real writers fill in details along the way, which sounds like a good way to have the story go nowhere interesting.

I’m not a writer, but if I was to apply this strategy to programming, which I am familiar with, it’d be like letting the AI decide what all the features are, and then I’d have to go and build them. Considering more than half my job is stuff other than actually writing code, this seems overly reductive, and underestimates how much human experience matters in deciding a framework and direction.

Your first draft isn’t an unoriginal idea expressed clearly; it’s an original idea expressed poorly

I like this a lot. I’m going to thieve it.

Great point. There’s no opportunity for “so bad it’s good”. The Room wouldn’t have been a thing if Tommy used AI.

I can see how it could be useful, or mandatory in future rpgs. It can generate a framework for a real writer, with extremely large amounts of logical branching, a billion times faster. Then you go over the top of it and use the framework as concepts to use or revise. This streamlines the process, unifies the creative vision, and allows for such a large game without procedural generation that would haven taken a team 10 years or not at all, done in 2.

That means in about 6 months or so the AI content quality will be about an 8/10. The processors spread machine “learning” incredibly fast. Some might even say exponentially fast. Pretty soon it’ll be like that old song “If you wonder why your letters never get a reply, when you tell me that you love me, I want to see you write it”. “Letters” is an old version of one-on-one tweeting, but with no character limit.

The dialog pushing AI media seems to start from this assumption that I consume media just to have colors and words and sounds enter my face holes. In fact, I consume art and media because I like hearing, seeing, and reading about how other humans experience the same world I do. It’s a form of communication. I like the product but also the process of people trying to capture the bonkers, ineffable experience we all seem to be sharing in ways I would never think of, but can instantly verify.

What’s funny is, due to the nature of media, it’s kind of impossible to not communicate something, even if the artwork itself is empty. When I see AI media I see the communication of a mind that doesn’t know or give a shit about any of this. So in their attempt make filler they are in fact making art about how inarticulate they are. It’s unintentional, corporate dadaism.

I remember reading a longer post on lemmy. The person was describing their slow realization that the political beliefs they were raised with were leading down a dark path. It was a process that took many years, and the story was full of little moments where cracks in his world view widened and the seed of doubt grew.

And someone who was bored/overwhelmed with having to read a post over three sentences long fed the story into AI to make a short summary. They then posted that summary as a “fixed your post, bro” moment. So basically all the humanity removed. Reminds me of that famous “If the Gettysburg Address were a PowerPoint” https://norvig.com/Gettysburg/

Even in programming there are common feature frameworks. Having a system enumerate them based on a unified design vision from a single source architect rather than 50 different design ideas duct taped together could help a lot. I’ve seen some horrendous systems where you can tell a bunch of totally separate visions were frankenstein’d together, and the same happens in games where you can tell different groups wrote different sections.

I think the reason so many AI bros are conservative is that conservatives have historically had really bad taste in art/media, so they see the drivel AI creates and think, “oh wow, it looks just like what the artists make,” not realizing that they don’t have the eye to see what it’s missing.

You’re absolutely right, Lisa!

That’s the difference between an amateur writer and a professional writer.

AI is just a marketing term, there’s nothing intelligent about it. Its simply Large Language Models, databases that predict what should go next. Its like asking the prediction bar when you are typing to write a story.

Aand you end up with… ta-da-m, same old things, just rebranded. Very creative (no)

Not even necessarily a human being! I’d appreciate the fuck out of art if any species made it. But there must be more than uncaring, unfeeling, probabilistic interpretation of input data.