Yeah relating to each other through HowStuffWorks articles is the healing our society needs. Just keep shitposting until we all feel connected again, it will happen I promise!

Thou dost tho

Unfortunately I think it’s the opposite. It’s those who have made only some modicum of success in their creative work which are most threatened by AI. The lack of intellectual clarity in this thread doesn’t bode well for the creative potential of the posters.

Given my hatred for Funyun’s you have no idea how deeply this insult stings. But I will recover in time. Anyway, I didn’t say “plagiarism” you TI-83-brained excuse for a human <3

Actually I think, to the extent that it’s allowed to happen, AI producing “creative”/entertainment works will inspire novel advances in human works, likely things which AI could not begin to imitate any time soon.

I didn’t characterize originality that way.

I think it’s the other way around. I’m very confident in my creativity and inventiveness, so I don’t feel threatened by AI. Folks like yourself, on the other hand… I’m not sure.

Right, you’re not here to engage your intellect but to win a few meaningless shitposting points with others who want to play the same game. Who’s up their own ass? 💩

Right, because one example of morons utilizing AI for such purpose must mean that all who do are also morons and using it in the same way. Brilliant reasoning.

I never said AI is inspired or “has a brain”. Are you sure you read my argument carefully, my brain-having brother?

I’m not saying it’s a good thing, I would support writers unions pushing for bans on AI in commercial writing sectors, etc. Techno-displacement has broad implications and systemic roots which are often fucked up. That doesn’t mean AIs can’t out-write the average human in many contexts.

I agree. Cool skeet btw.

AI can’t write anything convincing even though there are otherwise-intelligent people who literally believe these programs have some kind of real agency/soul/general intelligence? Remember that the bar for “convincing” is not so high among the public.

No, it’s a mirroring of the pedantic take on the idea of “theft” as a disqualifier of ethical or qualitative standards for writing. “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

Largely, it is, in the way that the word “theft” is being used here. I await your explanation that it is otherwise.

Having our own experiences (which we express), employing novel approaches, etc, does not mean that the vast majority of our work does not “stand on the shoulders” of our community and history. There is an element of bricolage in all art.

We have our own experiences and we also synthesize other peoples experiences (and their beliefs/ideas and their language patterns and aesthetics). Picasso: “Art is theft.” Thompson rewrote The Great Gatsby word for word to better emulate the writing. Pretty much all musical composition, etc.

The poetics are of course limited to algorithmic imitation, but they are still there and are above average.

Where did I say that? Read it again bruh.

I’m very critical of the technocracy. You’re thoughts and feelings are so easily manipulated that you can’t help but read me as pro-SV. And your ability to express that is limited to middle-school level insults which you hope will gain a few “likes” and boost your avatar-dependent ego. :/

Ah but that’s what you’ve done. Where did I say that AI “knows” anything? Where have I contested that it will take jobs? The point I was arguing is simple: AI is sufficiently good at organizing information such that it can outperform the average person along certain metrics.

I wouldn’t say “simply” because there are lots of homogenous processes which inform output, but nothing which is expressed is untouched, to some extent, by the fountain of culture. I don’t just make music, music makes me.

It is certainly very dull. Great for technical and legal writing, though.

Can’t say that I expected it was going to be a coherent or entertaining burn, but thanks for trying to be polite. Sincerely, I’d suggest that your views might become more comprehensive and insightful if you spent time *outside* of the professional writer world.

Thanks for taking me back to elementary school with this schoolyard-level of insult. Nostalgia.

I agree that the intellectual property question is poorly understood, but I also think that all human expression is largely the mass theft of other human expression. Very rarely does expression seem to come out of nowhere, while also being highly resonant.

You’ve really presumed a lot which is not true not implicit in anything I’ve written.

Great slam.

Either you’re confusing the concept of “why don’t we pay humans…” with the quality of that syntax, or you think that question is an example of high-level writing?

It amuses me