[BugsJustFindMe]

> And if they’re not great then they’re not great

You see no problem with flooding every market with junk products that cost nothing to produce so that non-junk products are crowded out and impossible to find? This is exactly the thing that everyone now hates Amazon for and why trying to find honest reviews of anything online is so horribly frustrating.

Some barrier to entry is always better than no barrier to entry.

[brucethemoose2]

On the other hand, it could give nonprofit, noncommercial hosts an unprecedented advantage since there is less incentive to spam there.

[galaxyLogic]

I found the Amazon Wheel of Time boring, as if it was produced by a machine or something. I assume it will be even worse once they start using AI for doing similar things.

Language-model AI can simulate texts, but it cannot simulate how reading such texts make humans feel. Only a human writer can do that and only that makes texts truly entertaining.

[ChatGTP]

I think what we will find, contrary to what many people will tell you, is that there is actually something to be said for the character, story and purpose behind art works, including litterateur and, when it comes to writing, the message being conveyed by an author is also part of what makes a novel or an autobiography interesting.

A good example would be, an AI generated auto-biography of a fake singer. It might actually be fun to read if it's well written (generated?), but I'd have to say, I'd have zero interest in reading it because one thing I like about auto-biographies is that I get to know the author in more depth.

[galaxyLogic]

Right, similarly there was a recent story about how Bing-AI "Sydney" told the NYT reporter that it was in love with him and reporter should leave his wife and marry Sydney.

Perhaps fun as a novelty but really I have no interest in pretending to "know" what a chatbot-AI "claims" what it "thinks" or "feels". That is of no relevance to anybody because it is far removed from reality. It is just randomly generated text. And it can't be good art because there is no real person with real message or real feelings behind it. The chatbots certainly have no "message" to the humankind.

[jamilton]

I don't think this is really an issue with written work in particular. Thousands of novels I won't like already exist, I already have to rely on personal recommendations and samples, a million more novels I won't like is fine if it makes 10 I will.

[vidarh]

Millions of novels you won't like already exists. And most of them already don't earn any money. The biggest job for anyone who needs to earn money from their writing is publicising it, not writing it, unless you get accepted by a traditional publisher and they think they have a bestseller on their hands.

[ChatGTP]

Then it's an interesting thing to bother even pursuing?

I actually noticed this the more I play around with AI art, it's cool that we can do it, but I actually wonder if unlimited access to randomly generated art is actually useful? This becomes even more true when we're talking about novels, which are already hard to read (time constraints).

I was playing with DALL-E 2 today when I was bored and then it kind of hit me that there is almost no actual point to it all. Even if every time I clicked the button it painted a Van Gough, who cares?

I'm almost certain that there is more to like behind a painting then the painting itself, there is the story. For example my Dad is a painter so I like the painting because he painted it, yes it's a pleasant painting but that's not entirely the point. It's also that he painted it specifically for me with scenes that I actually know from my home town.

My cousin is an art collector, when we he shows me something new , we're 99% interested in the story behind the art. The tribe who carved a sculpture, it's age, previous owners etc.

I also own a painting which someone gave me because they ran out of cash when trying to start a company, so I accepted it as a payment for the work. It's valuable to me for what it represents. I think of the guys dreams and that I at least did my best to help him on his path even though that particular venture failed, it reminded me it pays to be kind and in the end he actually become quite successful doing something else so it represents a never give up attitude.

Maybe to say it another way, there was already pretty much unlimited access to good art, good photographs, hell probably even good code (through open source libraries). I guess the next step is actually figuring out what the point of having unlimited access to this stuff actually is?

I hate to say it but I'm actually starting to have similar concerns to others when we talk about "generated junk" polluting the information space. I actually think this is what will happen.

[jstarfish]

> I guess the next step is actually figuring out what the point of having unlimited access to this stuff actually is?

> I hate to say it but I'm actually starting to have similar concerns to others when we talk about "generated junk" polluting the information space. I actually think this is what will happen.

Prior to AI, I was only familiar with procedural generation-- first Minecraft, then No Man's Sky.

While Minecraft was addicting in its grindiness for raw materials, I never felt attached to any of the worlds I was building. When survival became inconvenient, I spun up a new one.

No Man's Sky scaled this out to generate an infinite number of planets. So many planets to choose from, once again I found myself never becoming attached to any single one, no matter how much infrastructure I built. Once I got bored/irritated, I bailed and moved on.

I see similar behavior in people when it comes to relationships-- so many options to choose from, any single one is disposable. Your values are either going to align with mine 100%/you're going to do exactly what I want or I'm going to block you; reconciliation and negotiation is inconvenient. It's easier to just ditch old and make new.

So I can see the same happening with art. There's no toil, no Labor of Love. No connection to it from the artist (who invests nothing), and no connection by the consumer (who can get something equally impressive with no discovery effort). It's all technically impressive...but ultimately worthless.

[vidarh]

Most people pursue it because they enjoy writing and/or because they have a dream of writing a great novel and being applauded for it. Of course some hope to win the jackpot of having a massive bestseller on their hands.

But there's also an element to it of writing a story we'd like to read that doesn't exist, and there AI tools might well end up replacing actually writing. Especially if it can riff off your feedback in more of an interactive fiction way.

As well as being able to get plausible expansions of the work of an author you like who is no longer writing (and that is where the most obvious commercial appeal for AI writing is - any given average book earns next to nothing, but even a third rate ghostwritten sequel in the name of a bestselling author can earn a fortune; expect publishers to start trying to sneak clauses about being allowed to generate sequels if/when the author fails to produce new works into contracts)

That said, there'll still be a space for human art for the reasons you give, and a lot of the market for content is similar - we pay for the stories behind the art as much as for the art.

[smeagull]

Why would you bother trying to find anything? You'd just request the book that you wanted to read.

I could finally find movies and shows that aren't complete garbage.

Also, Kickstarter won't stop working for books.