[runarberg]

> I'm not bothered by a fish's inability to quote Shakespeare.

But I am bothered when they put a pencil in the mouth of a fish and tell us that this is the future of literature, that this qualifies as playwright, and that theaters will soon begin putting on plays written by a fish with a pencil in its mouth.

[jackb4040]

"Fish are going to make your job, and most jobs, obsolete within the year" I say for the fourth year in a row. I'm pretending to talk to workers, but am actually indirectly addressing my fish investors trying to scare them into thinking fish are too world-changing of an opportunity to pass up.

Every talk show then has to have me on. It would be one thing if I was boasting about the fish, but scared of it? Well then surely there must be something important going on there. I begin:

"Don't worry. Be happy"

[Lerc]

But they are not claiming that current models are better than humans but later developments might.

Do you think that a descendant of a fish could be a playwright or put on a play?

[TehCorwiz]

Objectively no. Fish form animals have been around far longer than mammals and we've touched the moon.

[Lerc]

Well I would expect them to have been around for longer if they were to be ancestors of mammals.

[runarberg]

Taking your logic to its conclusion fishes (or descendants of fish) regularly recite Shakespeare.

However there is a major flaw in your logic. Fishes (or their descendants) reciting Shakespeare is part of natural history. AI making quality music videos is just a prediction (or maybe even just wishful thinking). The former has occurred and has been observed, the later has not. So you are comparing nature with science fiction.

[IanCal]

> Taking your logic to its conclusion fishes (or descendants of fish) regularly recite Shakespeare.

I believe that was the point.