I do not think it is real, the threat of AI is that it is indistinguishable from human output or it is better, if human writing is preferred and can be differentiated by its superiority then there is no existential threat.
I can logically accept that, but psychologically, if they were similar and I found out that a book I was reading was written by chatgpt instead of a human, I would immediately lose interest. Maybe that’ll change after some time, but It’s hard to imagine.
It won’t last, it’s just a prejudice, the same as if you said you stopped reading because you found out the book was written by a woman or a Belgian. In the end the only thing that matters is if the book is good, humans may always be able to out-write machine intelligence at least for human readers or they may not, it doesn’t really matter. Except of course if machines are better at everything humanity will probably become demoralised and fade out within a few generations.
My prejudice will last if only by principle. I may not be the majority, but my god. If I know I can read something written out of passion by someone made of flesh and blood, I’m not going to waste my time reading something generated by something that’s never experience the sun on their skin. That’s the difference. I’m not prejudiced against people. I’m prejudiced against virtual skin walkers.
Prejudices do tend to persist and that is your business, I am human and I am as invested in a human future as you are, my point only is that if you can not tell from the work itself that it is machine written then you are not discarding it on the grounds of literary appreciation which is the only way writing should be judged. Plus AI is a human construct and trained upon and represents a condensation of human efforts. In that sense AI output might be viewed as just another human expression.
I know that you’re probably right. I think right now my disinterest stems from lack of trust that it can be creative/novel or maintain consistent and intentional themes or styles over the course of lots of writing, and I’m mentally flagging that as a solely human trait for now.
Again machine fiction either possesses those traits or it doesn’t, while it doesn’t there is no competition and if it does then its inorganic source is objectively irrelevant, at least in regard of reading.
I do not think it is real, the threat of AI is that it is indistinguishable from human output or it is better, if human writing is preferred and can be differentiated by its superiority then there is no existential threat.
I can logically accept that, but psychologically, if they were similar and I found out that a book I was reading was written by chatgpt instead of a human, I would immediately lose interest. Maybe that’ll change after some time, but It’s hard to imagine.
It won’t last, it’s just a prejudice, the same as if you said you stopped reading because you found out the book was written by a woman or a Belgian. In the end the only thing that matters is if the book is good, humans may always be able to out-write machine intelligence at least for human readers or they may not, it doesn’t really matter. Except of course if machines are better at everything humanity will probably become demoralised and fade out within a few generations.
My prejudice will last if only by principle. I may not be the majority, but my god. If I know I can read something written out of passion by someone made of flesh and blood, I’m not going to waste my time reading something generated by something that’s never experience the sun on their skin. That’s the difference. I’m not prejudiced against people. I’m prejudiced against virtual skin walkers.
Prejudices do tend to persist and that is your business, I am human and I am as invested in a human future as you are, my point only is that if you can not tell from the work itself that it is machine written then you are not discarding it on the grounds of literary appreciation which is the only way writing should be judged. Plus AI is a human construct and trained upon and represents a condensation of human efforts. In that sense AI output might be viewed as just another human expression.
writing doesn’t necessarily need to be judged in “literary appreciation”.
Though it does fit as the most general case currently.
I know that you’re probably right. I think right now my disinterest stems from lack of trust that it can be creative/novel or maintain consistent and intentional themes or styles over the course of lots of writing, and I’m mentally flagging that as a solely human trait for now.
If true AGI happens, it won’t matter.
Again machine fiction either possesses those traits or it doesn’t, while it doesn’t there is no competition and if it does then its inorganic source is objectively irrelevant, at least in regard of reading.