How much longer do human writers have?

Realistically, how much longer do you think it'll be until AI can write canonical works of literature that rivals the greats?
Will aspiring writers accept defeat? Are our dreams relegated to men of the past?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hope not long. In 20 years I hope it will be so advanced that it can even generate music. Just using command prompt to utilize something like "David Bowie 80s era, but with death metal vocals"

    And finally these bums have to get a real job.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >And finally these bums have to get a real job
      And here it is, laid bare. People love art, but have nothing but contempt for the people who create it. And if you think of art as only a collection of tropes and aesthetic signposts, you don't understand it anyway. Anything generated by an AI cannot be art. It expresses nothing, it means nothing, an algorithm can paint a landscape but could never begin to understand what a moving vista looks like.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cope and condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a (real) job, sir. The bums will always lose.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's just plagiarizing from its database. It's not creative anything new. You give it instructions and then it takes something off the internet and rearranges it to cover its tracks. It's all smoke and mirrors. If people honest to god think this is art then they really are useless eaters that will just consume meaningless shlop like cattle. It's all hype by cryptogays trying to sell you monkey jpgs.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Technically we all plagiarize from all that we learned throughout our lives, everything you know has been given to you. If the AI only takes on the style of one author and rearranges it, then you're right, but there's no reason it can't take inspiration from multiple different sources just like humans do.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          An AI can't be inspired because it isn't conscious. It is a soulless algorithm that takes entire paragraphs from articles and rewords them to pass them off as its own. All the hype around AI art and literature is just a fade. I watched a great essay talking about AI art that explained how AI art fails to capture spirt and imagination. All of its outputs like generic, it misses those little details that make art special. It's the same with literature. It's funny to watch an AI make up shit on the fly for shits and giggles, but it can't replace real human writers because it lacks a soul. People have this mentality that AI is superior because we hype it's benefits in media and fiction to the point where people unironically expect it to solve all our problems like a god. The reality is much more disappointing. AI being used as a shortcut to make soulless shlop easier to mass produce for the cattle to consume. I hate it.

          It writes like shit. I bust my ass laughing when I see barely literate tards on this board talk about how AI is going to one day write literature so beyond the capabilities of humankind that to read it your limbs will start glowing golden and your heart will grow three sizes.

          What gives people the right to believe they could receive such a thing?If I asked you to read and interpret the greatest works of literature, 80% of their content would go over your head entirely, as I am sure they have when you’ve read them. Melville’s best, Dante’s best, Nabokov’s best, Chaucer’s best, Shakespeare’s best… I have said they’re essentially perfect works of art before. That’s a lie, they go beyond any scale into a world of meaning the average reader can no better receive than the average reader can receive ultraviolet and infrared in their eyesight

          I hate how right you are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            > All the hype around AI art and literature is just a fade.
            To me it looks like all the criticism is just a cope as AI continues to progress year after year, and there's a lot of hope that this kid is going to stop aging. I'll agree with you when it has stopped progressing for a period of 10 years.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It is a soulless algorithm that takes entire paragraphs from articles and rewords them to pass them off as its own.
            That's not really how it works. The AI's "brain" doesn't actually contain its training data; it can't, it's much too small to. It contains complicated statistical generalizations derived from it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >"David Bowie 80s era, but with death metal vocals"

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Off-topic. Execute all recessed chin, DYEL AI-spammers with the Mozambique drill. Literal morons who would not be able to identify good writing if it was right in front of them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      its good enough writing for 80% of the population, just not for litchads like you. So if ChatGPT steals 80% of writing things still change quite a lot

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the real issue with ai art, be it image or text, is not with ai art itself. but with the people who don't understand art enough to know that it is more than just an image and more than just words. so a lot of people will see it and think it is just as good as the best human-made art

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ChatGPT and similar "AI" writing tools are a fad and most of the excitement around them is coming from shills with a vested interest in making this seem like a revolutionary development. ChatGPT can only produce pastiche, and this will ultimately never change. If you're worried about being outperformed by a bot, you're a hack artist and would have had to "accept defeat" anyway

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Then how do you explain stuff like this?
      Building a Virtual Machine Inside ChatGPT:
      https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        A computer program can simulate a computer program, wow truly shocking stuff. This has nothing to do with art.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Well, apparently you don't know much about autoregressive language models, lol.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >shills with a vested interest in making this seem like a revolutionary development.
      OpenAI is a for profit company that is 49% owned by Microsoft. However, I don't think shills would start a "artist hate" bored on Reddit or do lowcow shit like this pic.
      I'm more worried about the cargo cult around ai.

      An AI can't be inspired because it isn't conscious. It is a soulless algorithm that takes entire paragraphs from articles and rewords them to pass them off as its own. All the hype around AI art and literature is just a fade. I watched a great essay talking about AI art that explained how AI art fails to capture spirt and imagination. All of its outputs like generic, it misses those little details that make art special. It's the same with literature. It's funny to watch an AI make up shit on the fly for shits and giggles, but it can't replace real human writers because it lacks a soul. People have this mentality that AI is superior because we hype it's benefits in media and fiction to the point where people unironically expect it to solve all our problems like a god. The reality is much more disappointing. AI being used as a shortcut to make soulless shlop easier to mass produce for the cattle to consume. I hate it.

      [...]
      I hate how right you are.

      All he's going to do is argue semantics is circles. I've been seeing it for weeks on IQfy and /ic/.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Even if they accuse him of using a third-party tool, how are they supposed to prove it?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >fad
      I'm not the biggest fan of AI but the technology isn't going to stop improving, especially when a timeline where you're able to see, talk to and hear your waifu hangs in the balance.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      People have said "AI can never do" a lot of things. Forgive me for being skeptical of such claims at this point.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        two weeks

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A literary genius like me will be able to manipulate this tool much more effectively than hacks like you. I will always mog you

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >ai writes a 1000 page epic
    >at various points the word nugger is spammed 20 times in a row without warning
    Love ai

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It writes like shit. I bust my ass laughing when I see barely literate tards on this board talk about how AI is going to one day write literature so beyond the capabilities of humankind that to read it your limbs will start glowing golden and your heart will grow three sizes.

    What gives people the right to believe they could receive such a thing?If I asked you to read and interpret the greatest works of literature, 80% of their content would go over your head entirely, as I am sure they have when you’ve read them. Melville’s best, Dante’s best, Nabokov’s best, Chaucer’s best, Shakespeare’s best… I have said they’re essentially perfect works of art before. That’s a lie, they go beyond any scale into a world of meaning the average reader can no better receive than the average reader can receive ultraviolet and infrared in their eyesight

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI can only use fancy, that it mechanical association. Whilst that is an important literary power, what is great in true literature is the esemplastic imagination, which no AI can master. A simple proof off this is asking AI to write poetry, it's a all doggerel produced by mechanical association.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Given that math-driven pastiche generators have nothing of interest to say, I don't see actual writing going away anytime soon.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I do not believe it will write good literature. But most people don't read good literature. Most people don't read at all.

    What made me change my mind was a comment I saw a few weeks ago from a person who said he had stopped reading books and now just read AI stories he generated himself. I saw then the depths of stupidity and baseness, and I realised most people would fall in there alongside him in time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But then nothing is lost - in fact it could be seen as a useful tool to sepaeate people who appreciate art from people who just want ‘content’

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I think AI will be able to churn out mechanical genre fiction that is already produced by mechanical automated writing. It wouldn't surprise me if it can write kindle erotica schlock that sells (or would have sold if the women diacover it).

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Even if, and it is a big if, but granting that the pro-AI people are right, and AI got to the point where it could generate a perfectly good piece of literature, it would just be one among many writers out there. The main reason I like to read is to get someone’s specific perspective on things. Whatever it manages to create, AI is only one possible perspective, there will always be space for other writers too. I don’t see the problem with it.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI is already well on its way to be able to read your mind. Writing will be easy for it.
    I, for one, welcome our new AI overlord with open arms. Please respond with a ":)" to gain favour with our future AI overlord.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    10-20 years

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think it could lead to a more efficient writing process but it remains a tool for now and isn't a complete solution for simply creating a coherent and enjoyable novel at the press of a button. I doubt it's far off achieving that, but would still need editing. When I experimented with it I was unimpressed with its writing and especially its poetry. It always came out with bland goodboy sentiments stinking of reddit. Suspect it's more likely to replace copywriters than anything else in the short term.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If they keep gimping it with overbearing filters, forever

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know who would read a novel written by one of these. I think something like movies are in much greater danger. And licensed novels like those Warhammer and Star Trek books will switch to AI. But, and maybe I'm giving people too much credit here, I think people who read want to read something that is a personal expression of some sort. And why would someone pay money for an AI prompted novel when they can just go online and generate their own?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It will make lawyers obsolete long before it makes artists obsolete. Laywerspeak can be made into an algorithm because laws are rules, art has no rules on principle and art isn't about efficiency either.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      but lawyers have credentialism which has proven to be a very strong driver of society

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But unlike art the field of law benefits strongly from increased efficiency, which means credentialism is eventually gonna lose to a computer if it makes firms more money.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i am ESL, so when i want to make fancy posts online i utilize it for rephrasing and style improvement. but i noticed it always makes my text so flat and boring, like, it eradicates all personality from anything i write.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      maybe instruct it to write "like an ESL"

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *