The criticisms of trillion dollar corporations and environmental costs are sound, as are the criticisms of replacing the labor of ordinary working writers, but I don't really hear an compelling case for why genuinely creative, original writing is existentially threatened by AI.
davydm•3mo ago
yeah, i came here to say that it sounds like wails against ai simply because it's ai, not because the content is, honestly, mediocre at best (by design - it can't exceed it's training because it interpolates, instead of extrapolating)
I agree the ai slop is... slop. I don't think it will ever replace real human writers all the way. Sure, greedy corporates will try, and gullible masses will accept most of the crap. But sometime, somewhere, someone will want to read an original thought, and that will (so far) have to come from an human.
labrador•3mo ago
Also, the article doesn't mention there are many well written books in the training data so there's a chance you'll get well written output. It's not all slop. There will always be a need for a human in the loop to serve as writer and editor to select the best output. For a good model of what writers should be doing they should look at computer programmers who are pair programming with AI.
labrador•3mo ago
davydm•3mo ago
I agree the ai slop is... slop. I don't think it will ever replace real human writers all the way. Sure, greedy corporates will try, and gullible masses will accept most of the crap. But sometime, somewhere, someone will want to read an original thought, and that will (so far) have to come from an human.
labrador•3mo ago