JMS on why AI won't replace human writers any time soon

[KGeo777]

Nobody who values art wants to see a machine replace human artists.
It's a death cult kind of idea.
But the people who run the media companies-based on their demonstrated behavior-don't care about art, don't care about society -so if they could make a machine that dictates what they want to do--and then force people to digest it--that would be great for them.
For everyone else (like 99% of the world?) it is not an issue.

The big problem right now is that the commercial realm of art is so tightly restricted and incredibly unimaginative -- that is because old standards of quality and merit have been abandoned. The crisis is not that AI will replace real artists, it is that the owners of media companies have done everything they can to restrict the renewal of artistic quality and standards and merit.

If AI replaced the leadership of these companies--we would probably have better media entertainment decisions.

Notice they are only talking about replacing people who do traditional artist jobs--not their own management roles.
Jut like Mr Whipple thought.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Here's a great example of AI writing.

 

[Toby Frost]

Only an AI could make Batman sound like Seth Meyers impersonating Donald Trump! I've got a feeling that some of these "written by an AI" stories are written by humans as a joke, but that did make me laugh. It was both gibberish and better than some Batman stories I've read!

 

[JunkMonkey]

Only an AI could make Batman sound like Seth Meyers impersonating Donald Trump! I've got a feeling that some of these "written by an AI" stories are written by humans as a joke, but that did make me laugh. It was both gibberish and better than some Batman stories I've read!
[/QUOTE,]

I agree. This was a spoof...

...wasn't it?

 

[Brian G Turner]

"You drink water, I drink anarchy."

Why isn't that already a Joker quote?

 

[bretbernhoft]

I work heavily with individuals from all over the world, who are Search Engine Optimization (SEO) specialists. And almost all of them are using AI everyday, to create content that hundreds of millions of people will read. I think it is a bit naive to say that AI will not replace human authors. It already has.

 

[therapist]

I think it is a bit naive to say that AI will not replace human authors. It already has.

I can see AI replacing authors when it comes to writing basic essays, or articles. But when it comes to writing fiction, AI such as Chat GPT lacks any sense of artistry. It writes like a 12 year old with perfect grammar. I've never seen it write even a decent flash fiction story. It would take a monumental leap for it to start writing full-length novels better than a professional human author can.

 

[HareBrain]

It would take a monumental leap for it to start writing full-length novels better than a professional human author can.

I think this is certainly true. The danger (to writers) is that a diminishing number of people will care. I have friends whose intelligent preteen daughter gets ChatGPT to write bedtime stories for her to her own requirements. It might be that for an increasing number of people, customisation will win out over quality, especially if people don't read enough of the good stuff to realise the difference. Most of what gets consumed now is trash, and its adherents happily admit it. I can easily see models like ChatGPT getting to that level, even if they can't manage genuine insight or imagination.

 

[therapist]

especially if people don't read enough of the good stuff to realise the difference

That's a good point. I've had friends (non writers) send me short stories written by AI, thinking that they were really good. The bad writing was obvious to me, but overlooked by them.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Marketing has always been about style which can range from horribly simple to stunningly realistic. True imagination, research, and realistic detail are not as important as they used to be. Maybe they will cycle back, but in the meantime, pay to play has allowed anyone, and now, anything, complete front line access to the public marketplace.

 

[sknox]

>replace human authors
I wonder what we really mean by this phrase (we can substitute any other art or craft for the noun). I'm trying to picture the specific act of replacement.

1. At the most obvious, it would be firing a copy writer and specifically replacing that author with AI. The most likely areas for this would be writing news stories, advertising copy, thalt sort of thing. Or producing video or still images, for those in the visual arts.

2. Similarly, but less directly, it would be not expanding existing staff, or not replacing someone who left, and using AI to pick up the slack. I can see that happening.

3. As for us fiction writers, the act of replacement will be less obvious. I mean, we can still write. Presumably the replacement would come when an author submits a book that in earlier times would have been published but now the publisher says oh we have plenty right now, thanks anyway. That will be nearly impossible to document, though I expect will hear anecdotes about that.

4. Less directly, we'll start to hear how the wave of AI-generated fiction has so flooded the market that new or even experienced writes can no longer get visibility.

Those are the replacement scenarios I've been able to envision. I welcome others, but meanwhile are my comments on my comments.

1. I think this is already happening and isn't going to un-happen.
2. Same with this. Certainly both 1 and 2 will happen to a greater extent, but there will continue to be a place for humans in that industry. (Short story idea: a copywriting AI gets fed up with its human editor and takes drastic action, and that's how the war begins)

3 and 4. Yes, we can still write. But that's just us. We grew up before AI. What about future generations? What about a time when everyone has accepted AI writing, when human-generated art is viewed as artisinal and even eccentric? When no child has learned handwriting (we're nearly there already), no child has been encouraged to write stories, when creative writing classes have dwindled to a handful of courses at private colleges. Perhaps there will be a time when we *can* still write, but most of us don't. After all, that's how most of human history went. Few story inventors, plenty of story re-tellers.

To put this another way, when I see the phrase about replacement, there's an implication of some force or action on the part of AI itself. But that's now how it will work. We humans are the culprits. It will, on the one hand, be cost-cutting, profit-loving capitalists looking to save money (save a buck? Fire a human!). On the other hand, it will be us humans who simply don't do as much of an activity as we used to. Yield the field.

 

[Harpo]

Declaration. I hereby name a new genre of AI SF “AS IF”

As if......

 

[Justin Swanton]

What worries me the most is that the stuff AI can produce would be acceptable by the current market. Original, human thinking is an (almost) dead duck. We are used to ingesting stuff that software could come up with. Like this.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The human author will challenge the reader's expectations, whilst AI will give them the familiarity they desire.

In today's throwaway society, when we are being offered ways to occupy our spare time in more ways than ever before, consumers will often take the superfluous 'comfortable' option, than have something that they really have to think about.

AI writing provides that 'easy' option, as often (to a certain extent) do authors with characters and templates for stories that we are familiar and comfortable with. Which, (as it always has) serves established authors well but makes it increasingly difficult for new writers to have their voices heard.

 

[Rjalex]

AI will help good writers who care about what they're doing write better. AI will help bad writers who don't care write more but worse.

 

[paranoid marvin]

AI will help good writers who care about what they're doing write better. AI will help bad writers who don't care write more but worse.

I guess that if you're stuck for an idea, or need a little inspiration, asking AI to make up a story on the spot may help give you direction.

 

[cyprus7]

Perhaps a human author's 'true fans' will deliberately seek them out over the AI-generated babbling and financially support via a subscription model, leaving the happy masses to consume the babblers output

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Perhaps a human author's 'true fans' will deliberately seek them out over the AI-generated babbling and financially support via a subscription model, leaving the happy masses to consume the babblers output

Yes please. I could do with the money.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

The human author will challenge the reader's expectations, whilst AI will give them the familiarity they desire.

Yes, and the old saying comes to mind: Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the public!

Without wanting to sound elitist (but probably failing) there are multitudes of undiscerning, crap-absorbing, thick-as-two-short-planks consumers out there just waiting for this AI stuff to be fed to them. Adults who think WWE is real. Who will click on a Youtube video titled Elon Musk reveals new battery that will take us to Mars next year! Who think their kid is going to be beaten into sixteenth place by fifteen transgender athletes at the school's next egg-and-spoon race. Honestly, the stupidity out there is astounding.

 

[sknox]

I wonder this: feed one AI engine on nothing but general stuff, just whatever gets scraped off the daily news. Feed another AI gourmet meals: high literature, scientific work, the very best work. Which will write better literature? Which will write better news stories? Which will write a better adventure tale?

I wonder this, too: raise different AIs on different language models--this one nothing but Hindi, that one only Latin. Now translate them both into a third language and evaluate. Is there a different in quality? <winks to Robert Pirsig>