Because it sucks

i work training ai responses in things like chat gpt the robots are still only using info given up to 2021 and then searching the internet after those databases fail. Their responses are also pretty terrible, they have issues with grammar, giving false information, and cant tell the difference between poem types.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaU6tI2pb3M&pp=ygUKRXRoaWNhbCBhaQ%3D%3D

I apologize for the length of the video, but I promise it’s good.

AI is not creative, it’s exploitative. It is not capable of improving on itself, especially when it comes to the basic questions of humanity that literature engages in.

Could it write a decent run of the mill YA pop novel? Sure, maybe. Could it create a work of long-form journalism? No. A truly challenging novel about modern life? No.

It’s not actually intelligent, and every part of it still relies on human labor.

It probably will. The Luddites were right.

I think it’s going to be a long, long time–decades at least–before AI is capable of generating anything that I’d be interested in reading much of. In a good novel, every detail has to hang together and reference what’s come before and what’s still to come. The kind of little glitches that we’ve learned to pick out in AI-generated art will stick out like a sort thumb in a novel-length written piece.

It may be earlier that AI learns to reproduce the most formulaic, uninspired novels. The dregs of the romance genre, for example. (Nothing against actually good romance novels.) I’m not personally worried about that, because I don’t care about those books.

Right now “AI” is just a souped-up version of Google Autocomplete: it puts words together which often go together. If you read about a page of it, you realize it is pointless in the most basic sense of the word: it has no point or goal, it just meanders in a stream-of-internet-consciousness. The books put together using it are going to be drops in an ocean of cheap crap.

In the longer term, sure, it could it could upend authorship, but in the longer term it could upend a lot of other things too, in ways which are fruitless to speculate in detail about right now since so much is unknown.

Books belong to their readers. There will always be a market to hear something from a unique perspective.

AI may be able to one day have general intelligence but humans are more than just intelligence, natural or not.

Reading is a conversation between author and reader, I am more interested in what other humans have to share with me, not a chat bot.

First AI works are not copyrightable and so vastly limit their ability to make any money. There’s a huge segment who will refuse to read them, and they will by its very nature lack any originality as they are based off existing works.

Confidence in AI not ruining the book industry stems from the belief that technology can enhance rather than replace human creativity. Many see AI as a tool for streamlining processes, aiding in content discovery, and expanding distribution, ultimately coexisting with human-authored works rather than overshadowing them. Additionally, the enduring appeal of traditional books and the unique qualities of human storytelling contribute to the confidence in AI complementing, rather than threatening, the industry.

Love,

ChatGPT

I think the bigger problem for a lot of different creative fields are the people who have 0 understanding of what “AI” is and what it does and then exaggerate its capabilities and go off.

Simple summary… AI - as it is algorithm’d today - is basically an extrapolation, a summary, a synthesis, an aggregation of something that exists already which mean right from the start, it loses because it will lack uniqueness and authenticity of the creative human voice.

There will never be an AI that will give you style of, say, Ernest Hemingway or dept of examination of human soul and morality as evidenced by Dostoyevski.

There is no way AI as such can come up with a new paradigm of human condition.

AI doesn’t even know what a literary device is when it writes it.

Hype is 99% of it and the other 1% is bullshit.

Dont worry about AI.

Denial.

When an artist finds their muse, their glimmer or whatever you call that spark, the artwork comes out so naturally and easy. As for writers, the story practically writes itself. Words string together in such unusual sequences that the conscious human mind can’t typically come up. It taps into a primal part of our being that engages the senses, it tries to put into words feeling we collectively know but cannot grasp onto. When the audience consumes such material, they too get to envelop that beauty and enjoy it.

Meanwhile AI could string together words, but it uses a database to produce the algorithm. But by itself, it’s lacking the soul that makes it relatable and engaging. Not saying that it can’t learn to write and I’m pretty sure some writers out there incorporated AI into their writing process. So who’s to say?

It’s a good question, and it’s likely that your worst fears regarding AI literature will become true. I’m sure certain AI algorithms will also be copyrighted and leased to individuals, whom can use it to create customized reading experiences.

Because there’s already too many books written by humans for people to read, there is no marketable reason why a person would turn to something written by a computer among an overwhelming sea of options that already exists.

Amazon is swamped by AI content and no one is buying it. It’s just more noise.

The answer is simple: we can smash all the computers with two-by-fours.