[miklosme]

> If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant.

Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant.

These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.

[52-6F-62]

Creativity is not equivalent with digital output volume.

I think we’re going to see an explosion of waste.

We are information processors. The input makes the output. What happens when you close that loop?

[jetsetk]

You can observe this trend w/ AIfluencers already: They create short guides on how to leverage AI tools like chatGPT to generate income/reach and all of their typical bullet points equal generation of low-quality noise:

Examples: let chatGPT.. 1. write blog posts 2. generate scripts for youtube videos 3. create short stories so you can sell them as a book

Painful to see. I would like to think nobody in his right mind is willing to consume these delightful pieces of work. Dead internet theory on the next level.

[52-6F-62]

At best it's annoying noise, at worst it's a psychic trap that will confuse and inhibit the personal development of many.

[asdff]

That's only because the Netflix bean counters end up working like an AI in their ends. AI trains on known things and outputs something from that finite set. Netflix bean counters similarly bet on known things or derivative things and the output reflects that. The difference is, scripts for the unknown things still occasionally get produced in this later situation, which is exponentially more than can be said if 100% of our content came from AI.

[Spivak]

If you just go into the Midjourney Discord you'll see people with absolutely no mechanical artistic talent be create absolutely stunning novel art. The creativity people have there is crazy and the AI is letting them go from head to canvas in a few seconds.

[bogwog]

When I see AI art from those communities, it all looks the same to me.

People tend to overestimate their talent, and get overly attached to their own ideas. So when a tool like midjourney/stable diffusion generates beautiful artwork based on a low effort prompt from the user, it's comfy to think that they had a big part in it.

The reality is that almost everything those tools make is equally gorgeous/amazing regardless of who uses it, so they're effectively interchangeable. As a tool for personal expression, it has a lot of value because of the impact it can have on the individual using it, but as art it's pretty worthless. A generated AI image could potentially have some cultural impact or value, but not on the merits of "it looks pretty", since they all look like that.

[tablatom]

> as art it's pretty worthless

My experience browsing midjourney supports this. It's amazing how quickly you go from "wow" to "whatever". But that's probably cold comfort for a huge number of jobbing illustrators. Paying clients typically don't want art.

[mlindner]

We're already past the point of diminishing returns on "human creativity".

And I would argue that the current (mostly recent productions) Netflix catalog is indeed repetitive and stagnant. Originality in tv production is currently in a race to the bottom.

[dinkumthinkum]

If what you are saying is true, how will anyone afford it?