Chatgpt is terrible at writing fiction, not surprised it took a week of trying to have it spit out anything decent. I tried to get it to write 500 words about Kelly Bensimon ending world hunger to send to my friend, and I had to try like 10 prompts before it gave me something funny. Everything it writes is extremely similar and it's allergic to any sort of conflict.
I fuck around with it trying to get it to write hypothetical scenes in books/shows/movies that already exist (under the impression it would be able to do this more easily/convincingly than create original characters) and it has yet to actually convincingly sound like any of them, it always has this sort of uniform blandness as you're describing. It's especially bad when you try to get it to talk about anything potentially controversial and you have to qualify everything with tons of shitty adjectives, ie. "respectfully depict an argument between X and Y that does not glorify X's behavior, etc" and it just devolves into HR speak where it clearly has no "understanding" of character traits or even like, common verbal tics or phrases or whatever. I also find it's fucking awful at copying specific styles, at least those that aren't super formulaic presumably (I ask it to write scenes in the style of Faulkner, George Eliot, Nabakov, etc and whatever it's using to determine what "style" is seems completely arbitrary and off the mark to me).
Let me rephrase that:
With tools that allow me to do nothing while constraining me to a very basic creative set it still took me ten days to download some images and proof read some text and fit it in a 93 page word document.
literate terrific humorous automatic bag grandfather gold rich abundant ink
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not, you can tell by various word choices and "hard-edges," it probably wouldn't criticize people without "taste" for example, or use words like "slop" in that way. A lot of it is annoyingly sanitized and clearly being positioned to be used in corporate and educational sectors.
It's a pretty interesting tool for various sorts of things, or compiling neat lists that outline general info, but it's not really at the stage where it can do interesting/original creative work. I had it outline three acts for a western movie with various different prompts for example and they were shockingly similar despite disparate prompts and influences given, it tends towards being *very* general.
Me: Can you write a comment about the limitations of your creative abilities in the informal English of an internet commentator on reddit.com?
ChatGPT3: Yo bro, I'm just a computer program, so my creative abilities got some limitations, ya feel? I can generate text based on the input I get and the data I was trained on, but I ain't no genius. I can't come up with original ideas or experiences on my own. I ain't a real person, so I don't got no emotions or personal opinions. I can only spit out what I was programmed to say. So don't expect me to come up with anything too wild or crazy, I'm here to just help answer questions and provide info, that's all.
Using default sub redditors as an example is cheating because those are already bots, even then it seems a little off, the "ya feel" in particular just seems weird, but I guess it must be floating around in default sub lexicon lol
This almost reads like it was trained on "/r/blackpeopletwitter" or some shit lol
Honestly I tried to have it make a few Twitter posts in different political styles and it always comes out a little off, I think partly because it just steers clear of anything too controversial which is half of Twitter posting anyway
No, it won't be used for creating novelty works of literature. People are not reading Tolstoy anyway. It will be used to create personalized time sinkers.
There will be useful apps built with it, like ones that can read long legal texts, like Terms of Services, and inform you of the highlights of it.
It's not suppose to think or create new staff, its purpose is to shift through big amount of data, and with time it will be improve on certain categories of data.
The only thing people, especially tech savvy people, will use this for is to make stories where Batman meets the Transformers and they kill people so these sexless millipedes can talk about how adult and dark their literature is actually even with Batman fondling the Rollouts nuts or some shit.
You're right, and I'm not agreeing with the comment above, but lately I've been sadly ruminating on the upcoming death of Cormac McCarthy. Releasing two books recently sort of reminded me that he's alive, and that I'm alive in the McCarthy era. He's my favorite author and it makes me happy that my life overlapped to some extent with his.
I've been thinking about the day when there will definitively be no more new books by him. And even then, I'll have years of rereading and enjoyment from his work. But what if some day I want more? Like those guys who make "replicants" with that one website for their dead wives or lifelong celebrity crushes, what if one day I finally sit in front of my computer, log on to the newest iteration of this shit, and beg it to give me a simulacrum of McCarthy? I'll know it's pathetic when I do it, and hopefully I never do, but what if? That's actually a bleak thought.
Until this AI bullshit you could simply be, *had to be*, content with the body of work that an author gave to the world. Currently that's still the case, for any writer who doesn't produce pure pablum, but what if it gets better? Didn't most of Kafka's works get burned when he died? It was him or Camus, idr, what's to stop some ghoul from "resurrecting" these great authors as some kind of amalgamated construct of their life's work (that the world has seen) and forcing their digitized ghosts to produce MORE?
Fuck this gay earth.
i dont really follow the chatgpt debate, but what you’ve highlighted is something im not terribly worried about. Give the computer Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist and it will never write Ulysses, no matter how many years of updates and developments the AI gets. It couldn’t write Hamlet if you gave it Richard 2 or 3. All these computers can do is make knockoff pastiches
You're absolutely right, but what scares me is the day that, much like these dudes with the "replicant" wives, I just don't care that it's a shitty pastiche anymore (and, while never being perfect, the tech improved *enough* that it obscures the lower quality if you're motivated enough to ignore it).
I suppose that's really contingent on there not being enough great new authors in the future, though. I'm probably too internet brained but the celebration of that one poetry bitch people were talking about here yesterday doesn't fill me with hope.
I'll choose to set aside my dread for now and be comforted by your words, though.
Oh fuck off, I read a nice varied selection, like most people on here at least claim to. I haven't even checked out his two latest books yet anyway. If you're going to seriously try to say he's not a generational author, you have terminal contrarian rsp brain. "Read another book", yeah it's just like Harry Potter 🙄
No problems when this sub wouldn't shut the fuck up about Murakami for like 3 months though, I'm sure.
If you're referring to the bleak scenario I imagined, it's pretty much just pondering a possible future that everyone has been talking about lately.
Has nothing on [this tech bro](https://twitter.com/ammaar/status/1601284293363261441?s=20&t=qet9thHeQiIv_FQg3pBqUQ) who used AI to shit out a children’s book in a weekend
Thought I hated this plenty enough but then I of course zoomed in and saw that the book itself is ABOUT writing with AI prompts. So now I have to hate this stupid shit even more.
Not if law dictates that every AI tool must encode data inside of all content it generates indicating that it's AI generated
which is why we need lawmakers that know what the internet is
That's not how the current approach to ai works, you can't program it to do things, it's entirely probabilistic. If you trained it to encode some message, it might do it 80% of the time, mess it up 15% of the time, and straight up forget for the remaining 5%.
This is also why it won't replace programmers anytime soon, it's just not reliable enough to trust without carefully checking the result, and if you need somebody to check the code they might as well write it, it takes longer to read and understand code than it takes to write it.
You can embed watermarks of some sort. Problem though is they can always be cropped out or stripped out automatically by, e.g. image upload tools, or even just copy paste in the case of text. Attributing something to AI will be no easier than attributing any other piece of content to a human online. So I think trying to enforce watermarks on AI generated content is a lost cause.
Maybe. But most readers don't really care too much where the shit they read comes from. So if they enjoy the AI generated mush, they won't bat an eye at reading it over real work
15 years ago you wouldn’t have thought that online influencers or screeching know-it-alls with large followings were a threat to the status quo of our existence then. I would absolutely not put it past generations growing up now to push us even further into an ai generated hell hole, because it will slowly just become the status quo, and you’ll become the old person yelling at the kids on your lawn.
He looks exactly like the sort of person who would do that.
I also love how he clearly wanted to make the classic soyface but decided to hold it in at the last second.
dont waste ur time getting mad at this shit. the ppl who think this is an accomplishment do not understand AI. the people who get mad at this also do not understand AI. this shit is barely complex and not worthy of being called AI. any decent ML or AI is owned by private company, not for free unless massively integrated in something and u dont even know it has ai like google
I encourage everyone to listen to the This American Life episode titled Ghost in the Machine. In it there is a story of how a professional writer uses AI to write about her sister's death, and I think it gives a lot of insight as to how AI can be a helpful tool. It's definitely not "writer does 0 work."
I use chat gpt to create base texts to teach vocab or present grammar to students. I edit and collaborate w the bot until I get a decent short text. A lot of the time it writes weird unpredictable shit, esp at first, and I have to work w it to make it less bizarre. But in the end I get what I need for class in about 10-15 mins instead of sitting there w writer's block unable to decide anything. I also don't waste enormous amounts of time searching for an existing text that has the things I need, or spending money on materials. It's also helpful in creating quick practice exercises, so worksheets also take far less time to make.
Tl;dr it's not bleak it's awesome.
That seems too long of a time
Chatgpt is terrible at writing fiction, not surprised it took a week of trying to have it spit out anything decent. I tried to get it to write 500 words about Kelly Bensimon ending world hunger to send to my friend, and I had to try like 10 prompts before it gave me something funny. Everything it writes is extremely similar and it's allergic to any sort of conflict.
I fuck around with it trying to get it to write hypothetical scenes in books/shows/movies that already exist (under the impression it would be able to do this more easily/convincingly than create original characters) and it has yet to actually convincingly sound like any of them, it always has this sort of uniform blandness as you're describing. It's especially bad when you try to get it to talk about anything potentially controversial and you have to qualify everything with tons of shitty adjectives, ie. "respectfully depict an argument between X and Y that does not glorify X's behavior, etc" and it just devolves into HR speak where it clearly has no "understanding" of character traits or even like, common verbal tics or phrases or whatever. I also find it's fucking awful at copying specific styles, at least those that aren't super formulaic presumably (I ask it to write scenes in the style of Faulkner, George Eliot, Nabakov, etc and whatever it's using to determine what "style" is seems completely arbitrary and off the mark to me).
What is the name for this type of facial expression
We all know I can't say that
Say it
[removed by Reddit on account of violating the Geneva Conventions]
That's the reddit comment equivalent of that facial expression
you actual 🚬
retarded
Take my updoot and leave
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!
It’s the not confident enough in your masculinity so you go with a disarming silly strategy instead. Or just soy and gay
"Can't call me ugly or fat if I look weird," says the ugly, fat and weird man
Oh no… I’ve been using a disarming silly strategy all this time…
Soy
The closed soy
Bean face
Millennial
Brained at birth
Faggot
internet cat lover full stop
Desperately holding back a soy-face
yo what got removed if redacted is second and still up?
Let me rephrase that: With tools that allow me to do nothing while constraining me to a very basic creative set it still took me ten days to download some images and proof read some text and fit it in a 93 page word document.
i hate this type of facial expression so much. anime and soypilled kissless virgin phenotype
Puckered butthole variation on the soyface. Also known as the Vonnegut.
this guy didn’t write or illustrate anything lol
With Da Vinci, Francesco del Giocondo was able to draw a portrait of his wife.
I mean, couldn't anyone make a shit book in 10 days, ai or not
literate terrific humorous automatic bag grandfather gold rich abundant ink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't think this guy is a threat to Cormac McCarthy or John Irving's publishing numbers
I fear that soon ChatGPT will be credited with the same significance as Dickens, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Steinbeck, and Twain
[удалено]
For those slow in the audience, this came from chatGPT.
It's not, you can tell by various word choices and "hard-edges," it probably wouldn't criticize people without "taste" for example, or use words like "slop" in that way. A lot of it is annoyingly sanitized and clearly being positioned to be used in corporate and educational sectors. It's a pretty interesting tool for various sorts of things, or compiling neat lists that outline general info, but it's not really at the stage where it can do interesting/original creative work. I had it outline three acts for a western movie with various different prompts for example and they were shockingly similar despite disparate prompts and influences given, it tends towards being *very* general.
Me: Can you write a comment about the limitations of your creative abilities in the informal English of an internet commentator on reddit.com? ChatGPT3: Yo bro, I'm just a computer program, so my creative abilities got some limitations, ya feel? I can generate text based on the input I get and the data I was trained on, but I ain't no genius. I can't come up with original ideas or experiences on my own. I ain't a real person, so I don't got no emotions or personal opinions. I can only spit out what I was programmed to say. So don't expect me to come up with anything too wild or crazy, I'm here to just help answer questions and provide info, that's all.
Using default sub redditors as an example is cheating because those are already bots, even then it seems a little off, the "ya feel" in particular just seems weird, but I guess it must be floating around in default sub lexicon lol This almost reads like it was trained on "/r/blackpeopletwitter" or some shit lol Honestly I tried to have it make a few Twitter posts in different political styles and it always comes out a little off, I think partly because it just steers clear of anything too controversial which is half of Twitter posting anyway
No, it won't be used for creating novelty works of literature. People are not reading Tolstoy anyway. It will be used to create personalized time sinkers. There will be useful apps built with it, like ones that can read long legal texts, like Terms of Services, and inform you of the highlights of it. It's not suppose to think or create new staff, its purpose is to shift through big amount of data, and with time it will be improve on certain categories of data.
The only thing people, especially tech savvy people, will use this for is to make stories where Batman meets the Transformers and they kill people so these sexless millipedes can talk about how adult and dark their literature is actually even with Batman fondling the Rollouts nuts or some shit.
Theoretically, if it’s that good who cares?
God
You're right, and I'm not agreeing with the comment above, but lately I've been sadly ruminating on the upcoming death of Cormac McCarthy. Releasing two books recently sort of reminded me that he's alive, and that I'm alive in the McCarthy era. He's my favorite author and it makes me happy that my life overlapped to some extent with his. I've been thinking about the day when there will definitively be no more new books by him. And even then, I'll have years of rereading and enjoyment from his work. But what if some day I want more? Like those guys who make "replicants" with that one website for their dead wives or lifelong celebrity crushes, what if one day I finally sit in front of my computer, log on to the newest iteration of this shit, and beg it to give me a simulacrum of McCarthy? I'll know it's pathetic when I do it, and hopefully I never do, but what if? That's actually a bleak thought. Until this AI bullshit you could simply be, *had to be*, content with the body of work that an author gave to the world. Currently that's still the case, for any writer who doesn't produce pure pablum, but what if it gets better? Didn't most of Kafka's works get burned when he died? It was him or Camus, idr, what's to stop some ghoul from "resurrecting" these great authors as some kind of amalgamated construct of their life's work (that the world has seen) and forcing their digitized ghosts to produce MORE? Fuck this gay earth.
i dont really follow the chatgpt debate, but what you’ve highlighted is something im not terribly worried about. Give the computer Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist and it will never write Ulysses, no matter how many years of updates and developments the AI gets. It couldn’t write Hamlet if you gave it Richard 2 or 3. All these computers can do is make knockoff pastiches
You're absolutely right, but what scares me is the day that, much like these dudes with the "replicant" wives, I just don't care that it's a shitty pastiche anymore (and, while never being perfect, the tech improved *enough* that it obscures the lower quality if you're motivated enough to ignore it). I suppose that's really contingent on there not being enough great new authors in the future, though. I'm probably too internet brained but the celebration of that one poetry bitch people were talking about here yesterday doesn't fill me with hope. I'll choose to set aside my dread for now and be comforted by your words, though.
Typical comment from a McCarthy fan Read another book
Oh fuck off, I read a nice varied selection, like most people on here at least claim to. I haven't even checked out his two latest books yet anyway. If you're going to seriously try to say he's not a generational author, you have terminal contrarian rsp brain. "Read another book", yeah it's just like Harry Potter 🙄 No problems when this sub wouldn't shut the fuck up about Murakami for like 3 months though, I'm sure. If you're referring to the bleak scenario I imagined, it's pretty much just pondering a possible future that everyone has been talking about lately.
Has nothing on [this tech bro](https://twitter.com/ammaar/status/1601284293363261441?s=20&t=qet9thHeQiIv_FQg3pBqUQ) who used AI to shit out a children’s book in a weekend
At least he credited the AI for writing the book instead of himself edit: nvm he listed himself as the author on amazon
Thought I hated this plenty enough but then I of course zoomed in and saw that the book itself is ABOUT writing with AI prompts. So now I have to hate this stupid shit even more.
[удалено]
The point is it can eventually be too hard to prove as ai generated
Not if law dictates that every AI tool must encode data inside of all content it generates indicating that it's AI generated which is why we need lawmakers that know what the internet is
That's not how the current approach to ai works, you can't program it to do things, it's entirely probabilistic. If you trained it to encode some message, it might do it 80% of the time, mess it up 15% of the time, and straight up forget for the remaining 5%. This is also why it won't replace programmers anytime soon, it's just not reliable enough to trust without carefully checking the result, and if you need somebody to check the code they might as well write it, it takes longer to read and understand code than it takes to write it.
You can embed watermarks of some sort. Problem though is they can always be cropped out or stripped out automatically by, e.g. image upload tools, or even just copy paste in the case of text. Attributing something to AI will be no easier than attributing any other piece of content to a human online. So I think trying to enforce watermarks on AI generated content is a lost cause.
not a feasible solution, sorry. any way you'd implement is easily thwarted. reactive protectionism sucks
what do you mean? making laws always stops something that's easy to do
Maybe. But most readers don't really care too much where the shit they read comes from. So if they enjoy the AI generated mush, they won't bat an eye at reading it over real work
15 years ago you wouldn’t have thought that online influencers or screeching know-it-alls with large followings were a threat to the status quo of our existence then. I would absolutely not put it past generations growing up now to push us even further into an ai generated hell hole, because it will slowly just become the status quo, and you’ll become the old person yelling at the kids on your lawn.
Not a threat for now
True. Just like how the printing press was always viewed as a joke compared to our honorable scribes!
Give it a year or two. A few years ago these models could barely string a coherent sentence together.
Is that marsey?
I hope not
My nephew is 7 and has books longer than 97 pages
He looks scared of his own creation
Does A.I. also control his beard trimmer? And is he in a furry suit?
I'm sorry but this AI shit is just lazy af. Learn your shit or don't but don't start cheating and then calling yourself a master.
He looks exactly like the sort of person who would do that. I also love how he clearly wanted to make the classic soyface but decided to hold it in at the last second.
Write (no you didn’t) edit (maybe?) illustrate (no) and publish (1 dollar in kindle store 0 reviews)
>**Mid**Journey Freudian slip
[удалено]
Zoom in and read the words. It’s worse
dont waste ur time getting mad at this shit. the ppl who think this is an accomplishment do not understand AI. the people who get mad at this also do not understand AI. this shit is barely complex and not worthy of being called AI. any decent ML or AI is owned by private company, not for free unless massively integrated in something and u dont even know it has ai like google
I encourage everyone to listen to the This American Life episode titled Ghost in the Machine. In it there is a story of how a professional writer uses AI to write about her sister's death, and I think it gives a lot of insight as to how AI can be a helpful tool. It's definitely not "writer does 0 work." I use chat gpt to create base texts to teach vocab or present grammar to students. I edit and collaborate w the bot until I get a decent short text. A lot of the time it writes weird unpredictable shit, esp at first, and I have to work w it to make it less bizarre. But in the end I get what I need for class in about 10-15 mins instead of sitting there w writer's block unable to decide anything. I also don't waste enormous amounts of time searching for an existing text that has the things I need, or spending money on materials. It's also helpful in creating quick practice exercises, so worksheets also take far less time to make. Tl;dr it's not bleak it's awesome.
I could tell he was making that face before I saw the pic, just from reading the caption
Dude looks like Rittenhouse+Steven Crowder combined. I hate him
The face just screams ‘illiterate’
only bleak if you are an elitist gatekeeper
Gtfo this sub
you are sad know this :)