Like thieves in the night.

General Artificial Intelligence, as defined in being able to pass the Turing Test is here, like it or not.
Everybody will be affected, in various ways.
Nurses, plumbers, and farmers have nothing to worry about.
Accountants, truck drivers, and sales clerks should worry somewhat.
Writers, programmers, and graphic designers should be scared. AI is coming for their jobs, maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually and forever.

Yes, AI just regurgitates what it gleaned from social media sites, Wikipedia, and other, publicly available parts of WWW.
Note that the corpus of millions of existing books is NOT where Chat GPT gained its “knowledge” (and it clearly shows)
The book industry learned the hard way what happened to the music industry and did a better job of protecting its IP.
However, isn’t regurgitating what we’ve learned, perhaps with some tweaks, how we all operate?
Chat GPT does the same, but it has a (much) bigger body of knowledge.

It is still very early, and the societal impact of AI is not obvious (yet).
Consider the following puzzle:
Algae grow on the surface of a large pond. It starts with a tiny patch and doubles in size each day.
Assuming it takes 30 days for the algae to cover the entire pond, on which day will the algae cover only half of the pond?
.
.
.
Day 29.

How do we protect ourselves from that scourge (and I am not talking about the algae)?
Striking Hollywood actors just “won” a concession that they must be compensated for any use of their image in generative AI. Well, it’s only a matter of (not too much) time when the most famous actor will be an AI-generated persona.
A movie like “Napoleon” will be ENTIRELY made in AI-powered Blender (Currently the most advanced graphics software program)
Don’t believe it?
To paraphrase Trotsky: “You may not be interested in AI, but AI is interested in you”.

Also, Google is eating our lunch, too. Way back then, search results had only links to pages containing the text you searched. Now, Google is ripping out the entire content of (your, mine) page and plastering it as a search result.
This means users never click on the link and never visit the originating page.

The pushers of Chat GPT are selling us on a bright, prosperous future infused by their merchandise.
IMHO more likely scenario is the early days of the Industrial Revolution, where the handful of industrialists lived in 100-room mansions with golden door handles while legions of 10-year-olds swept the floors of the textile mills for 14 hours/day.
Yes, it eventually got better for the masses, but those 10-year-olds didn’t live long enough to see it.

So, what’s to be done (by writers)?
Should we arm ourselves with crowbars and march for the data centers? Become farmers? Invest in magic mushrooms?…

 

This might get moved to the AI forum.

No, it isn't. Has not be demonstrated yet.

With the amount of armchair podcasters talking about it, I've grown entirely weary of this soothsaying. We aren't making replacement numbers population wise, and also AI will take all our jobs, and also there won't be anyone to work those jobs, and also there aren't enough houses, and too few people, and too many people with not enough jobs.

Yes, as far as tech pacing goes, doom talk is only premature until it isn't. But look at Netflix, Hollywood, video games: am I unjustly apathetic by seeing no great loss if, worst case, those writers vanish? Oh no, what will I do without She Hulk?

Majority of trade artists have already been financially screwed for a long time due to oversaturation, and AI is a runaway train regardless. You can't stifle it globally, so every country has to partake or else fall dangerously behind.

 

Our only play is to continue writing without the aid of any software assistance, and put a big ole label on our works that affirms that these products were created by an independent human mind, the creation of which was not aided in any way by any bullshit programs that fake, phony, fraudulent "writers" might use to cheat and make money and gain social capital from being complete loser faker frauds. The legislation is coming, and I know to which creative products my own money will go.

 

I hope someone named Butler will arise in the near future.

 

If your writing was scraped and/or used without your permission to feed the AI (LLM), then a writer should get a lawyer and probably join one of the class action lawsuits. But other than that, it's simple enough just to not use AI to assist or create anything you're writing. If you are a writer, that probably means you're the best person to write your stories.

I see using AI as wrong on so many levels, but I don't think I need to get into that here. I in no way feel threatened by AI replacing creative writers. That's just not going to happen. Your biggest competition is not a machine, but all the great published writers who have never even touched AI.

If someone thinks they need AI to be a writer, then, yeah, maybe they should become a farmer.

 

Well, Chat GPT has been tweaked to be artificially polite, politically correct, and accommodating. Humans are more brusque and forthcoming, so if you try to have a conversation with the currently published version of Chat GPT, you can clearly detect it's not human.
However, few people without prior knowledge would detect they are conversing with software after an average interaction with the raw version of Chat GPT.
A few months ago there was a New York Times podcast about one of its writers conversing with Microsoft AI chatbot. The writer described this conversation as highly unnerving, and NYT writers are no gullible fools.
You can listen to the podcast here (NYT may require login first):
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/17/podcasts/the-daily/the-online-search-wars-got-scary-fast.html?auth=login-google1tap&login=google1tap

YES! As much as I am non-fan of the US litigious culture, suing AI companies for IP infringements may be among the only reliable ways to protect ourselves.

 

I don't think AGI is here yet, but may arrive in 10-50 years.

But I do agree with the general point above. The introduction of AI in some industries will probably result in some short term pain and it won't be evenly distributed among the populace. This is one of the areas the government can help, to soften the blow to those displaced, but the government tends to get these things wrong in many cases.

 

How about, instead of stirring people into fear and anger we stop, breathe and THINK first.

Yes, there are AIs in existence - a computer program that requires a Human to input what it wants. Could they become things like in sci fi shows where they look human? Possibly, but that's a long way off.

And right now there's so much other things to worry over; two wars, climate crisis, economy, cost of living crisis, health things.

Why on earth are you adding to that with something that is not even here yet?!?

 

Headline bait.
https://www.piratewires.com/p/its-a-chat-bot-kevin
This article sums up well what's going on. The NYT writer isn't necessarily a gullible fool, but he certainly is counting on his audience containing such.

Kevin most likely knows how a chatbot works (if he doesn't in his position, then he is a fool who thought his own reflection was an intelligent other), which explains the nature of his prompts. He got the bot to print inflammatory things and sprinted that shit to the [cashmoney] presses. Even with that user's intent, the chatbot still couldn't converse sequentially like a human.

They could be modeling or harbouring a GAI as we speak—anything is possible—but I don't think it's with this technology. It's also possible the govt. is holding alien tech, that time travel has been invented, and that Kennedy shot first (he was actually on the grassy knoll, LHO was just defending the library). These things are always a possibility, but I don't see them being any more possible now than before, not enough for me to hold up the 'doom upon us' sign or even grant them credibility in the first place.

 

AI will make it harder for human art to sell, but it can't stop you from writing if you love it. So, keep on writing!

 

No, it will not stop hobbyists, but AI will impact professional writers.
Example: Indie Authors
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/ai-generated-books-force-amazon-to-cap-ebook-publications-to-3-per-day/

Do you have any idea how long it takes to write a book? The blood, sweat and tears behind each publication when the book is written by a person as opposed to AI-generated books?

And the same argument applies to art. Any man and his dog can use AI to generate graphics for kids' books, book covers, or whatever—people with graphic skills used to be paid for this service.

The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh.

ETA: People are also using AI-generated content to enter and win competitions.

 

No worries, PiP! I get that this is an emotive topic. You're reinforcing my point: AI will make it harder for human art to sell. It's already affecting the labour market of cultural production. I guess it’s my turn to apologise for sounding harsh: Adapt or go extinct.

 

(Ahem. First post here, please be gentle.)

AI is already shaking up internet writing. People who manage website content are in some cases churning out dozens of AI-generated articles per day without fact-checking or editing, and they rank well on Google, get lots of visitors, and make the website owners good money while providing very little value to readers. This is depressing, but it’s basically just a new form of web spam.

In other cases, they’re using AI to generate good first drafts and then editing, fact-checking and polishing those articles to be human-written, quality articles. This requires a lot of human input: giving the AI good prompts, refining the prompts as needed, doing actual human fact-checking, injecting some personality, wit or honesty into the posts, etc. In this use case, the AI is just another tool for human article writers.

Some people I know worry that publishers will start churning out AI-written novels rather than paying writers. I think they would need the second model to create remotely coherent novels. At this point, given how little they pay people for most novels, the cost of hiring the humans to get the AI to work that well would probably be higher.

 

Starting your first post by begging for mercy is a new tactic.

We don't bite much.

There are always sites that churn out click bait, in some fashion. Sadly those sites survive because of the low infornation part of our society. Not much we can do about those sites, much like publishcations like the Nation Enquirer, with similar content.

 

Welcome! LoL... i don't bite... I just nibble around the edges.

Yep, I wrote an article on growing cucumbers (I jest you not) using AI, in seconds. I have a blog, and it was SO tempting to post!

but do people take the trouble and, over time, do they become lazy?

Will trad publishers tread this path in the future? It is a possibility. Apparently, it is possible to use AI to write in the style of xxx author. So, who knows what the future holds?

Have you read this?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/10/tech/ai-generated-books-amazon/index.html

 

Begging already? But, darling, we're just getting started

 

Was it elsewhere on the forum, or something I heard over radio? With regard to new technologies, we (people) tend to over-estimate the short-term impact and under-estimate the long-term impact. Makes sense to me.

As far as AI is concerned, I haven't been curious enough to even download it to try it out. I don't particularly see that changing and I can't conceive how it would enhance what I set out to do in writing. It seems a soulless, exercise in vanity and self-delusion, so might perfectly fit with the world around us all the same.

There may be some cutting-edge creatives who manage something mind-blowing using AI and good luck to them. Can't see it working for me, but, and this might be the scariest part of all this, maybe some way down the road, we won't be able to tell the difference between AI and human output? Or just forget?

Much as the synthesizer promoted a slew of identikit dirge by (be kind!) modestly talented artists, there is still interesting and vital music being made, using whatever implements available to knock out a tune. I reckon it will be similar with written art. Ultimately, the need to communicate and explore the human condition through art can co-exist with quickfix, bang me out a best seller there Chat Chap.

 

Yeah, this is what concerns me the most. We're not there yet, but we're also not too far off. Just a quick aside from the writing - we're also not far off from voice and video-based generative AI becoming indistinguishable from reality. I don't know how many years it will take, but for sure within my lifetime, it's going to happen. If you think it's tricky to filter through establishment propaganda to get closer to the truth now, well frig, just wait til they can create fake audio and video evidence for anything you can imagine.

As for overestimating the short-term impact, I'm not sure that's the case here. Industries are being transformed seemingly overnight. Billion-dollar companies that sell human support to other companies that need it are bleeding value as their clients turn to cheaper generative AI-based support. Visual art that used to take hours, days to create now take seconds. "Pictures" of humans created by generative AI have been scored as more realistic than actual photos of humans. Frankly it's quite troubling to me that this AI scourge isn't being treated more seriously. We need regulation and legislation yesterday. No doubt, it could be very useful in fields where humans are failing for various reasons, the best example being healthcare. Generative AI could help relieve the healthcare crisis in my country. And translating ancient languages? Heck yes. Generative AI can be awesome for the sciences. It just needs to stay the fuck away from creative arts.

Back to the writing. I've said it many times, but we need a certification process for labelling pure, human-generated artistic products. Please, no one chime in with, "oh, well actually, reading lots of books and then writing a book is the same thing as generative AI" bullshit. It's obviously not, and anyone saying so knows it and is probably just having some fun being a contrarian (or just outright trolling).

I think the last bastion of creative writing will be humour. If generative AI is ever going to "get" humour, it'll take longer than anything else. Satire and referential jokes will be difficult to generate outside of a human brain. I'm currently writing a satirical novel, and I'm thinking that maybe I should make comedy my main focus for writing going forward.

 

I don't understand what was "SO tempting." Were you actually tempted to pass off something AI wrote as your own? Why would you want to do that? I don't get it.

Most trade publishers are not interested in putting out AI writing. In fact, based on recent contracts I've had to sign for writing I sold, they clearly state that. By signing, you are saying that AI was not used to assist or create the story. I think the literary scene still wants real stories by real writers. This is not something I see changing in any of the publications I submit my work to. And, truthfully, I'm just not convinced that AI now or in the future will ever be able to do what many great writers do and accomplish with their words.

I don't see fake writers using AI making it harder for people to sell creative writing. I'll always be convinced that I can do a better job at that with my own work. If I didn't feel that way, I don't think this would be the industry for me. Selling creative works and landing a publisher are hard because it's hard. That's nothing new. And it's not because fake writers are using AI. I don't see those people as having any success when it comes to creative writing.

 

Same. It just sort of feels like it would be a waste of time and I'm just not curious or interested.

 

Well, there are the contracts writers are signing where many places are working in language for the writer to say that the work is their own and that they did not use AI to assist or generate any of the story. Other than contracts I'm not sure what else a certification process would entail. Or maybe you mean for self publishing because with that anyone can basically publish anything. Still, I just don't see someone using AI as being on the same playing field as actual writers.

 

I admit that in my current wip I needed help with a little dialogue.. I actually never used what the AI thing gave me. I wrote it all myself, despite dialogue being my writing weakness.

So, go me?

 

How many Chat GPT bots did it take to screw in the lightbulb?
None. Due to Chat GPT limitations, they dropped the "in" part and got electroshocked
while trying to accomplish the act.

 

There are several food books on dialog available. Short of that keep plugging away, you will get there.