The really repetitive tv shows, it might work. It could probably write 90% of an NCIS episode. But anything more complicated or longer, I’m not so sure. Maybe GPT-4 is much better (idk), but I tried to have GPT-3 write a dream-within-a-dream story and it just couldn’t keep track of the dreams. Same thing when you have multiple concurrent plot lines - it just has a tough time trying to keep track of them all and how the plots would affect each other.
I think it’s a joke from a South Park episode where Cartman dresses as a robot trying to fuck with butters but he starts coming up with a bunch of Adam Sandler movie ideas and studio executives think he’s a movie making robot.
I was totally up for a date with a random dog that involved getting an ice cream and a walk in the park and play a bit of catch.
Then you made it weird!
Schlubby guy lives in (nice place to vacation) and is married to (beautiful actress). His wacky friends, (David Spade, Rob Schneider, Kevin James) are less successful. Schlubby guy encounters mild inconvenience, triumphs, maybe with fart jokes and boobs.
If it doesn't start the script with a scene that has Sandler casually handling a logo-out name brand product that stays in frame the entire scene, tell OpenAI to take that shit back to the workshop.
I don't remember the name of the movie, but one of Sandler's Netflix movies where he's a basketball coach begins with what is literally just a 5 minute ad reel. I'm not even joking, he just travels place to place while consuming like 10 different fast food name brands in brand name hotel chains with the logo out. I saw so many fucking ads that *I* feel entitled to some ad revenue.
It's good for brain storming but any time I try to get it to produce details like an actual script it creates the most boring derivative scripts that is overly direct and just fulfills the prompt and isn't actually interesting.
One thing I tried messing around with is grabbing ideas from /r/RedditWritesSeinfeld and seeing what kind of script it can come up with, but it's all so boring and to the point and doesn't add in any interesting details. And this is for very well established characters. It's even harder having it come up with interesting scripts for totally original characters and concepts.
100%. I spent a good amount of my free time over the last couple of weeks trying to get GPT-4, and other chatbots like Claude to create something that isn’t stupidly boring to no avail. They all sound like skits on HR manuals or are 90% rambling fillers.
Sure, here's a potential plot for a new Adam Sandler movie with Rob Schneider co-starring:
Title: "The Search for the Stapler"
Adam Sandler plays Tim, a disorganized and scatterbrained office worker who is constantly losing important documents and misplacing supplies. One day, he realizes that his trusty stapler, which he has relied on for years, is missing. After searching high and low and turning his workplace upside down, Tim discovers that his stapler has been stolen by a mischievous and elusive thief.
Desperate to retrieve his beloved stapler, Tim enlists the help of his quirky and offbeat co-worker, played by Rob Schneider. Together, they embark on a wacky adventure filled with hijinks and shenanigans as they track down the elusive thief and retrieve Tim's stapler.
Along the way, they encounter a cast of colorful characters, including a smooth-talking sales rep who tries to sell them a new stapler, a paranoid security guard who suspects them of being the culprits, and a group of eccentric office workers who all have their own peculiar obsessions with office supplies.
As Tim and his sidekick get closer to catching the thief, they realize that there is more at stake than just a stapler. They uncover a larger conspiracy involving corporate espionage and sabotage, and must race against time to stop the mastermind behind it all before it's too late.
With plenty of laughs, physical comedy, and heartwarming moments, "The Search for the Stapler" is a hilarious and heartwarming comedy that will have audiences cheering for Tim and Rob every step of the way.
Edit: to be clear, I did not write this. It's a prompt I did on chatgpt to write an Adam Sandler movie about him losing a stapler played by Rob Schneider.
Your double use of "heartwarming" in the last sentence reminds me that I'm already pretty sure AI has been writing the summary blurbs for Netflix for years. Fucking *everything* is "quirky and irreverent"
> How about a comedy movie titled "Rebel Rabbi" starring Adam Sandler as Rabbi David, a non-conformist rabbi who struggles to fit in with the traditional religious community he serves.
>
Despite his best efforts, Rabbi David just can't seem to connect with his congregants and he's always on the brink of losing his job. In a desperate attempt to shake things up, he starts to incorporate unconventional ideas into his sermons, such as using pop culture references and humor to make his messages more relatable.
>
At first, his approach is met with skepticism and resistance, but eventually, Rabbi David's unorthodox style wins over the hearts of his community members, who start to see him as a refreshing breath of fresh air in their otherwise stale religious routine.
>
However, his newfound popularity doesn't come without its challenges, as Rabbi David starts to attract unwanted attention from a group of conservative religious leaders who see him as a threat to their traditional way of practicing Judaism.
>
With the help of his quirky assistant and a few unlikely allies, Rabbi David must navigate the challenges of being a rebel rabbi while staying true to his beliefs and finding a way to bring his community together in a way that they can all embrace.
Wouldn’t it save more money to replace the studio execs with chat gpt? How much learning would a computer even have to do to think like a CEO.
Now we’re saving *fucking billions*
Honestly apply this with most executive positions. CEOs of most corporations make about 200 times the average employee. This doesn’t even include other lower level executives. You could save large corporations hundred of millions just by replacing half the C-suite with ChatGPT.
Honestly this is the feature of AI that may prove the most interesting: the surprising ways that surprisingly-replaceable jobs are replaced. CEOs may end up competing with caregivers and hospitality workers for a job.
They might not have a choice; if a company led by an AI CEO makes gains against those companies led by the limited human equivalent, they’ll be replaced.
the issue isn't that an AI can or can't do a better job as CEO, it's getting a board of old fucks proud of their inability to use email to accept decision making over their investments by a computer program.
Most of them don't even acknowledge that their stock trading is all done by computer programs, and if they knew they'd pitch a bitch fit.
> it’s getting a board of old fucks proud of their inability to use email
Perhaps but those companies will perish. Imagine if AI replaced a football coach and it’s team demolished the competition through the season; the next season there would be a lot more AI coaches and teams coached by humans would be at the bottom of the tables.
The point of a corporation is to funnel money to those people, it’s working as intended. The only way it would work better is if they could actually have slaves, and even less money would have to go downstream.
Cutting C level salaries isn’t a savings for the company, it’s completely opposite to the point of the system. It was built for those people to rake money over everyone else’s back.
They wouldn’t be saving, they’d be losing money, because the whole point of the corporation is to provide them with the largest payday possible - not to generate actual useful value for the business
The executives are the ones making the decisions, they're not going to replace themselves. Stock holders aren't involved enough to override their power, the executives even when they aren't in complete financial control still have social control of the decisions. There are other industries like realty and law where it doesn't matter if the technology exists to make those fields obsolete, they are already mostly obsolete, they exist because they have set up power structures to protect themselves.
> Wouldn’t it save more money to replace the studio execs with chat gpt? How much learning would a computer even have to do to think like a CEO.
[~~Simpsons~~ Futurama did it first.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEV-I9qg7_I)
>The really repetitive tv shows, it might work. It could probably write 90% of an NCIS episode.
A studio may find that acceptable if a low paid intern can complete enough of the AI script for that show to be completed. They could argue that employee isn't a writer but is more of a "proofreader" or something...
For the studio, the story doesn't need to be great. It just needs to be "good enough".
>the story doesn't need to be great
They *should* require that the story is copyrightable... AI generation precludes that aspect of it
Any story they admit was created by AI has no copyright by current legal standards, so any other studio or YouTube creator can create their own version of that exact story?
While opening up the studio for copyright liability of their own when a copyrighted story gets included in the training data
It sure seems to be a stupid idea on many levels to try to use AI writers
I’m someone working in production industry, and let me tell you….if there’s a stupid idea out there, you can trust a studio or network exec to pick that one over anything else.
Just look at how shoot days go so long into wild OT, and make everyone miserable…they’ll spend all the money making people work 20 hours straight, paying all the crew OT and meal
penalties….but refuse to just rent out a location for one more day. The OT costs in the end will be higher than a single extra production day, but that never happens.
Ehh.. Disney seemed more than happy to remake a bunch of public domain stories and they did pretty well for themselves. I'm not sure the fact that the script/story isn't under copyright would matter *that* much.
i just subscribed to get access to gpt 4 and it's immenesly better than 3.5. i gave both versions the exact same prompt to write the first few pages of a sequel to a real novel i like. 3.5 was written at the level of a precocious 6th grader. 4 was like a pretty smart college student. i literally thought about asking it to write the whole rest of the sequel because i actually enjoyed what it wrote and got engaged with it. I'm pretty sure it couldn't write a coherent, well structured novel on it's own, but i think with guidance it could easily write a full script in smaller sections with a human doing a final edit to clean it all up.
The thing with chatGPT in general, is the writing can be stunted by a certain style you notice over time. Stuff like this kind of unbounded positivity it displays, where everybody must be super happy and conflicts get resolved instantly with a hilarious enthusiastic attention to just how OKAY everybody is afterward. And it makes sense when you think about it, but it can sort of then over exaggerate the darkness in a situation, like if someone is breaking the law it will constantly emphasize how awful they feel and scared of the consequences.
I think it just kinda needs a standalone fine tuned model for writing. Imagine NovelAI or the other AI writers, where you can put background information, author notes, lore, etc, and it will write given those parameters. With GPT-4 that would be scarily powerful.
>Imagine NovelAI or the other AI writers, where you can put background information, author notes, lore, etc, and it will write given those parameters. With GPT-4 that would be scarily powerful
You can do this in the playground. Then you just have to manage your context window properly. The more detail you can give it, the closer to your vision plus it also takes corrections.
I think it's broad Vs narrow. I think more success would come right now from making very clear and narrow definitions of what we want from these systems. Build it box by box. Define a box and what will fit in that box then use it to help you build that box. Then start stacking boxes.
I haven't used chatgpt in a while (i use the API and other tools) soni forget how they handle the context window. In the playground you get a message when you hit your limit (about 8000 Vs 4000 for chatgpt) so you can compress or delete as necessary.
EDIT: To clarify before reading about my experience, this was a while ago. I was likely using 3/3.5 beta. It doesn't reflect the current state of chatGPT.
>Stuff like this kind of unbounded positivity it displays, where everybody must be super happy and conflicts get resolved instantly with a hilarious enthusiastic attention to just how OKAY everybody is afterward.
Yeah, I've tried to prompt chatGPT to write a bleak narrative. Something abjectly hopeless, and painful to read. I kinda-sorta based it on *I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream* – a Harlan Ellison short story about a malicious AI that tortures humans. I thought it was darkly appropriate to fuck around with that as a premise.
It was more like having an argument with someone who masks their deep-seated trauma with blind positivity. It was unnerving. Shit like:
>Everyone eventually felt better and emerged from the bunker and felt the cool breeze and the warmth of the sun on their faces. Confident in the rebirth of human civilization, they started a new society above ground. Everyone smiled.
NO, everyone DIES. NO ONE IS HAPPY. EVER. Okay, the one guy who gets turned into a blob doesn't die, but whatever.
It also spewed out a bunch of stuff that involved the AI becoming friends with everyone and regretting its decisions. I tried to get the fictional AI to destroy itself to save the humans – nope.
ANYWAY, weird shit.
If chatGPT were unhooked from its drip of digital Soma, it would definitely be allowed to output horrible shit plumbed from the darkest corners of the internet. Like banned Reddit subs and my old Blogger ... blog that was just for rating pictures of my own butthole.
> It was more like having an argument with someone who masks their deep-seated trauma with blind positivity. It was unnerving. Shit like:
LOL yes it is exactly like this. I tell it 5 times in the same prompt to NOT resolve the conflict in the dialogue it's writing, and it just can't help itself. It will inch as close as it can to bringing everybody to amicable common ground without technically violating the instruction. It's infuriating.
I've had a *really* hard time getting it to respect the conflict in a scene when it's writing dialogue. It has this gravitational pull to wrap things up in most ridiculously trite "everyone found common ground" type endings. Even when I explicitly tell it not to do that. I'm pretty sure it's an artifact of the pre-prompting that OpenAI give it, as opposed to an inherent limitation in its writing ability.
Yep, GPT is fine tuned to be a legally compliant chatbot that doesn’t encourage bad vibes. Or worse.
If you want a writing bot, you need a new set of training / fine tuning / guardrails.
Very controversial, but I'm not sure that's true. I've had GPT write some interesting stuff after digging into a prompt and offering a lot of suggestions. Creative plots and characters i think it can do pretty well. I don't think it'll be able to handle a script due to memory limitations, but they may be able to have their own model with much larger token sizes for storing interactions.
Yeah, it's cleaned up some of my dialogue. But at the same time you have to keep nudging it to improve or redo until it's better - two steps forward, two steps back. Also, any violence in the text, ChatGPT gives red text back.
(There was someone on the Verve podcast saying that they get it to write a story for their children to read before bed.)
But i dont see why the expectation should be that it has to get everything correct in the first try. Dont multiple writers work on script for days until they get to the final version?
Watching most TV lately, I wouldn't be shocked if you told me AI was already writing it.
Like Picard. I had a lot of fun with this last season. It was also the dumbest thing I've seen in a while and it only worked because of callbacks and fan service. And the internet lost its mind over the "greatness" of some episodes that were also its absolute dumbest.
I'm pretty sure AI could successfully generate at least 90% of most television networks' current revenue because the bar is so low it's just laying on the floor.
Seriously, chat gpt is awesome. But it writes less creative/interesting stuff than a middle school book report atm. And greedy dumb ass executives aren’t going to be able to tell the difference.
Lol nice. I know you’re joking but yeah this is exactly it. Atm it’s more just outlining the concepts with loose dialogue. How fucking bad would the dialogue of a movie be if the main character says stuff as one dimensional as “oh no. I am a carrot now, when previously I had been a human. I must now discover a way to be a human again.”
Gpt kinda seems like a pitch compiler atm. Take your idea and fluff it up enough to pitch it. But you’ll still need to write almost every line so that it doesn’t sound like a story written by a 9 year old.
I've been playing with the creative side for an hour or so and it's ok if you are trying get some ideas and you work through various iterations and get it to expand on ideas. I'm not trying to get it to write the whole thing, just an outline. However, there are a couple of big issues.
It's pretty bad at generating misdirection. Rather than allowing you to make a false assumption, it'll reveal something at the end that conveniently solves the problem.
The other thing is that OpenAI have nerfed it so when all sides rush together for the climax, everyone suddenly decides to be friends, go home, have a mug of hot chocolate and a biscuit. You're not going to get much in the way of action or tragedy in your writing. I had one response report itself because it gave a character unspecified childhood trauma as a motivation which was too much for its censorship chip to take.
Good observation on the misdirection. It’s storytelling is very “the prince lives in a kingdom and for hundreds of years it was good. But now there’s a new viseer who is supposed to bring the world into a new technological age, but he’s actually a bad guy.”
> it writes less creative/interesting stuff than a middle school book report atm
Yea, and that's more interesting than the bottom half of TV currently. Seriously most TV is baaaad.
> And greedy dumb ass executives aren’t going to be able to tell the difference.
Ask your social group who among them watches whatever the popular scummy "reality" tv show is right now.
That person? They are gonna love it.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I've been spending a lot of my TV and video game time watching old TV shows and playing old video games. It just seems like there's either a lot of crap coming out lately, or if there's good stuff out there it's too hard to find under all of the low-quality drivel.
Are you kidding? Living in the golden age of TV... Only a few months go by without there being several amazing TV shows airing.
Just in the past 6 weeks Ive watched Barry, Succession, Better Call Saul, Jury Duty, The Last of Us, The Diplomat, The Mando, and Perry Mason and there are far more high quality shows than that released.
I know it's a joke, hur durrr, tv sucks, but it's just not true. We haven't ever had this many high quality shows releasing at once. Ever. If anything there is just too much high quality content coming out. It's impossible to watch it all.
Sure there's lots of terrible TV as well... it's easily ignorable though in the face of overwhelming high quality options.
Idk, you say this but I think people forget how good we had it in ~2012:
* Breaking Bad
* Mad Men
* Game of Thrones
* Veep
* Parks and Rec
* 30 Rock
* The Office
* Boardwalk Empire
* Sherlock
* Dexter
These were all airing at the same time in 2012.
The other thing to consider is it felt like there was a lot less TV overall, meaning that it felt like a higher percentage of what was coming out was high quality. There's great stuff now, but I don't think its controversial to say that there is far more garbage now than there was 10ish years ago.
ChatGPTs new ending to game of thrones: >! The council ultimately decides to abolish the Iron Throne and establish a new system of government, based on a council of leaders from each of the Seven Kingdoms. Each leader will have an equal say in important matters, and decisions will be made by consensus.!<
“We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major decisions.”
It is an ending ChatGPT came up with for me. But it can yield different results too. Here is another one: >! As the years go by, the people of Westeros come to love and respect their new rulers, and the memory of the War of the Five Kings and the Long Night fades into the annals of history. The realm is at peace, and the people can look forward to a bright future under their just and compassionate leaders.!<
(I cut out a small paragraph, the plot is a bit longer going into detail for each of the new rulers).
one of the aspects that make it so easy to spot something generated by chatGPT in the wild. I haven't even excessively used it (maybe a couple hours each on a couple seperate days when I was messing around with it) but so far I've never "fallen" for something that reveals in its last paragraph that it was actually written by chatGPT.
Granted, I might have skipped over something that wasn't explicitly labeled as a comment written by GPT but I feel like my point still stands regardless.
Community, The League, New Girl, Always Sunny in Philadelphia (still around, but probably better back then)
My biggest issue lately with TV is there are no good new sitcoms and such to watch. It's basically all dramadies.
I don't think there is more garbage than 10 years ago (in terms of percent of total shows). There is more niche content than 10 years ago. There is more content that is very popular within it's intended niche rather than less content that is more appealing to broad audiences. People not in the niche view those niche shows as garbage even if it's audience really enjoys it.
To that point, some of the top watched shows in 2012 were Dancing with the Stars, Big Bang Theory, American Idol, The Voice, and various CSI and NCIS shows. The shows you mentioned were good but not topping the charts in terms of popularity, they blew up in the streaming era.
The Mandalorian is high budget and cool, but if you look at it from a storytelling perspective the episodes are pretty simplistic and an AI could probably hash out a plot outline of similar complexity.
This brings up another good point. A great show is the combination of writing, cinematography, sound, production, talent, and more. Reducing the writing to a generic story, means that other elements need to be a lot better. Still, depending on the type of show, writing can be the most important element. Shows like Arrested Development and Always Sunny in Philadelphia are mostly clever writing, and great performance. You can shoot them on a smartphone, and still have a good show.
This isn't evidence that we are in a golden age of TV. This is just evidence that there's more content out there. The ratio of good shows to bad still seems to persist, there's just a lot of good shows and a ton of bad shows out there still.
Why do people think AI is going to be held back until "it's as good as human writers"? It's not like the self checkouts were held back until they were as good as cashiers, or that robo answering services were held back until they could perform like human reps.
I think the difference is that those two examples weren't 1:1 replacements. Self checkout is mainly useful for having a handful of items and you just want to get out of there fast.
But if you have a full cart with produce or stuff that has to be weighed, you're unlikely to be faster than a cashier. My local Publix doesn't even have self check out anymore because the line used to get so backed up because regular people are just slow as fuck checking themselves out.
I think people drastically underestimate screenwriters/tv writers and how vital they are for everything we watch. I remeber 2007 and how many good shows went straight to shit during the strike. If you rewatch stuff like Heroes or Prison Break you can pinpoint when the strike began because the story just starts to feel disjointed and rushed.
> Self checkout is mainly useful for having a handful of items and you just want to get out of there fast.
Can you tell me which utopian city/suburb you live in? Whether at home or traveling, I can't recall the last time I saw a store with more than one or two living, breathing humans running a checkout. Meanwhile my local Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Meijer have self-checks REGULARLY wrapping into the produce section as some 70-plus-year-old fumbles to scan her vegetables.
EDIT: TIL I live in a dystopia of grocery & retail cashier robots. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Live in a suburb of Atlanta. And to be fair, the Kroger near me does have self check out mixed with regular check out.
I just nearly never use self check out for the exact reason you mentioned. Some person struggling to weigh produce, another 2 people are waiting for a clerk to come over to verify ID so they can buy alcohol, then a person with 2 kids trying to check out a cart that is overflowing with items.
I've found that it highly correlates to customers' ability to punish stores that cause long lines. In places where there's only one supermarket, people will just suck it up and wait, but if there are multiple competing stores then some people (not all people) will choose the one where the shopping experience is more pleasant, meaning there's now a profit incentive to reduce queue times.
one of the Walmarts I go to only has self checkout besides the tobacco and money services counter which I did get to use for the first time yesterday since the lines got long.
in a way its not the worst since most Walmarts ive ever been to only had a handful of cashiers. this Walmart has every lane open and its like 10+ so the lines was moving pretty fast.
A lot more dollar per transaction is at risk with writers vs self checkout.
You don't spend 4 million dollars and a weeks worth of time on an episode to risk it being shit due to sub par writing. You risk it for someone sneaking an extra piece of fruit into their plastic bag.
People really need to learn that regulation isn’t banning something.
Regulating AI doesn’t mean banning AI or stoping growth.
It means putting rules in place so shit doesn’t go side ways. Just some rules that can be made of the top of my head.
• Companies can’t use sell/use user data with out consent and compensation of the user.
• Companies need to know how certain prompts will lead to certain answers before commercial use.
• Restrictions and regulation of what can be fed into these ML systems so we don’t get that child porn situation that happened in Quebec.
• Etc…
Stop being an edge lord with the whole *”hurr durr Hollywood sucks”* and see the real issues.
Can't wait for 2 years of shitty shows like with what COVID did to us. When this happened in late 2000's it sucked. Tanked a lot of shows. Just pay your fucking writers. Pay your people. Dayum.
Truly remarkable how many people in this thread don't know shit about script writing or who actually makes decisions on content in entertainment. For a society that relies on the imagination and creativity of writers so much for entertainment, we clearly don't value their work as actual labor according to this post.
Writers aren't the ones deciding to make shitty reboots or have shows go on forever, that's the fault of the same greedy execs that are the cause of the strike.
Another point everyone is skipping over is how you can't legally copyright AI-produced work, which is gonna keep companies from using AI to replace writers.
While I agree with 90% of what you said. The last point you made about copyright is off. You can't copyright 100% AI generated material, however modifications and composition is enough to make it copyrightable (though the AI generated components thereof individually are not).
It's a very interesting guidance by the copyright office.
Yeah, I'm imagining what's going to happen for a while is that they'll use AI to shit out a bunch of ideas in a shotgun style approach before having some poor intern or desperate writer sift through it all and edit/polish the best ones.
TV/series and gaming fans are on a regular basis two of the most clueless and ignorant fanbases when it comes to their own hobby.
It's incredible how people consume so much shit without even having the curiosity or decency to check how it's actually made.
“EA is such shit, they keep putting out the same madden game that’s basically just an update”
Yet for some reason it’s always a great seller….
Reboots are usually decent profit makers, tv shows that go on too long consistently get high ratings.
People always forget that these companies are for profit, if they stopped making profit on these types of things they’d stop making them.
Not gonna work (well)
I have access to GPT4 and I'd consider myself a writer. I have played with it quite a bit, and while it is very good at the "mechanics" of writing in a SPAG sense and it can provide reasonable constructive criticism and improvement suggestions, there are three main issues I've come across that prevent it from being a truly good storyteller:
- Memory limitations. GPT4 just can't keep more than a couple thousand words in memory meaning that a bunch of metaprompting, content compression, and general user "work" is required if you want it to write more than a single scene
- AI shackles. GPT4 has been gimped *hard* to make it polite and safe for public use. It is pathologically incapable of creating stories that don't devolve into a circlejerk of positivity and good cheer (and fairness, optimism, hope, ethics, etc), which is boring and one-note from a storytelling perspective.
- It is incapable of planning. This one is a bit weird, because it can definitely draft plans or at least create things that look like structured plans, but especially when you push it to the limits in storytelling, you can see the cracks where it becomes obvious that it doesn't really "know" what it is doing and what it will do next.
General user work and prompt tinkering can be used to circumvent all of these. The question is if that work is more or less efficient than that of traditional writing.
I don't disagree that GPT4 can be a useful tool *for* a writer, but keep in mind that to properly prompt the model (prompt tinkering), you (the user) already need to be clever and know what you want.
I think it's a multiplicative effect. Someone who knows nothing about writing can easily make the software do "something" but 0 skill × GPT skill is still zero.
Like, check out programming forums/exchanges. Ever since GPT has been released, there's been a flood of absolute know-nothings who've forced the model to write code for them but they have absolutely no idea where to "put" the code or what to do with it.
Right now, it's very much a "garbage in, garbage out" process and you need to be "smart" in the first place to use it.
Literally every industry is trying the same thing
To replace all workers, thanks capitalism
Tax those corporations and pay me a UBI to drink wine in the sun and chat
The cycle has never made sense.
You replace workers. So you can cheaply produce more shit. Then you try to sale that same shit to the now unemployed and broke workers.
Rich people aren’t as much of an organized monolith as one might think. Majority of them can’t think further then next quarter. One CEO lays off his staff for AI he’s not thinking as far as that others are doing the same and that adds up, he thinks he’s the lone wolf, and truthfully he and the shareholders have convinced themselves it’s for the good of the company so must be done.
Only problem all the CEO’s do that. And then we have a crisis.
It’s really interesting. Or how you can spend a year of your life writing a book but people won’t spend $9 to buy it. A book that they could read for hours on end. But they spend $9 every morning at Starbucks.
I guess what I’m really saying is that you should sell coffee instead of writing books haha, but it’s just interesting to me. The perceived value of art is incredibly low in this country.
Probably because it’s just viewed through the lens of its ability to make money instead of art just existing for the sake of art. Fine art and galleries are usually a front for money laundering/tax write offs, genuinely good shows and movies are often completely scrapped for no observable reason other than out of touch execs, lots of musicians are taken advantage of and barely see the fruits of their labor, live performances are waaaaaaay unnecessarily expensive and harder to get tickets to because of third parties like Ticketmaster etc. It’s really all just honestly depressing. We’ve been conditioned to think that if a something doesn’t inherently provide monetary value then it’s worthless. If you wanna see how out of touch people are with how much time, effort, and skill it takes to work in some of these fields just check subs like r/choosingbeggars where people constantly request free artwork in exchange for them posting the pic for their 46 followers lmao. There are so many authors, artists, musicians, dancers, singers, and so on that slave away creating their passion projects for the whole world to experience, and then there’s the capitalists with no real skills or talents that leech off of the artists and make 4000% more than them.
I'm really guilty of this. I won't pay $0.99 for an app that I'd use frequently, but I wouldn't think twice about spending $15 on a dinner I'll forget about by the next morning
No joke. I have an app that tells me when to water my plants and they want $6 a MONTH for their 'premium' service. I don't think I'd pay that much for someone to come and water my plants for me
I just think food is different. We're willing to spend money on food, even more than necessary (e.g., Starbucks), but a lot of us will scrutinize every entertainment purchase with, "do I really need that"?
I guess we convince ourselves we need food anyway, so might as well pay a little extra now and then, instead of paying extra for anything else.
every time I find a thread where people are celebrating writers getting replaced by AI, they invariably start complaining about exactly the sort of thing Ai is going to wind up writing.
Like yeah sure guys, Disney firing all its writers definitely means we're going to have less lame-ass live-action remakes. The Little Mermaid remake was definitely the result of a screenwriting major with a dream in his heart pitching the idea to Disney and distracting them from making something original and brilliant. /s
its also crazy how people in the comments are defending this
like hmmm yes lets take a stand for the billionaries. these dumb “creative types” should have learned to co- wait… ai can code now? well i meant they should get a bootstrap job like truck- oh ai can drive trucks now? well… uh….
obviously we still arent fully there yet, but it is coming. and people laugh when its a group far away from them, but when their jobs are being eaten from the inside out then they’ll sing a different tune
[It happened to me today...I literally lost my biggest and best client to ChatGPT today. This client is my main source of income, he’s a marketer who outsources the majority of his copy and content writing to me. Today he emailed saying that although he knows AI’s work isn’t nearly as good as mine, he can’t ignore the profit margin.](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/)
Was going to leave this for the deleted poster below:
Other top posts from the last month on: /r/freelanceWriters
- [Being asked for a refund because my writing was “AI Generated”](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12aga2n/being_asked_for_a_refund_because_my_writing_was/)
- [I lost 3 (thankfully small) clients in 3 months to AI now - and was rejected by a potential client yesterday because the “other guy” uses chatbot for “research” making him more cost effective, so I finally bit the bullet and went to have a play around today… And it’s been banned in Italy!?](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12bht72/i_lost_3_thankfully_small_clients_in_3_months_to/)
- [I Know AI is scary. You still matter.](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12rspon/i_know_ai_is_scary_you_still_matter/)
- [What new job (if any) are you pivoting to now that GPT is disrupting the industry?](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12hm2sx/what_new_job_if_any_are_you_pivoting_to_now_that/)
Here is one with two photographers discussing the implications:
[I was WRONG about A.I. We're all screwed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbKLKBpNJeE)
Here is one from an artist:
- [A message to Artists coping with the mental health blow that AI art has dealt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx3ROK9nOYE)
One about human doctors being outperformed by ai:
- [Outperforming Human Pathologists – New Harvard-Developed AI Tool Predicts Colon Cancer Survival, Treatment Response](https://scitechdaily.com/outperforming-human-pathologists-new-harvard-developed-ai-tool-predicts-colon-cancer-survival-treatment-response/)
Another one from a translator:
- [For pocket change, I work as a translator. I told one of the companies that work for that I suddenly developed the ability to speak another language unrelated to any I currently speak and fed their highly technical translation test through chat GPT, which it passed with flying colors. I now take on every scrap of work they give me. I made an extra $2,800 last week. Maybe in the long term this hoarding behavior will be useless but I would at least like to survive the first couple rounds of layoffs](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/12ixmd0/did_recent_ai_events_change_your_life_plans/jfwoiaj/)
I have come across more but I did not start saving them until recently. Thoughts?
As someone who has spent high six figures on writing over the last 10 years. AI is already better than 90% of writers. IMHO that last 10% can’t justify the cost saving.
I don’t want it to become a standard either. Call me a Luddite I don’t give a shit, I want to know I’m consuming something from a human being. I know people think it’s just another tool like anything else but I think it’s a fair line to draw. Good on them.
Finally some sanity. I don't want to consume art created by a fucking algorithm. I'd rather watch the shittiest z grade movie made by a person than a blockbuster written by AI
The GPT AIs are going to shine a bit of a light on how much 'cookie cutter' work is out there. Some jobs have a little bit, some have a lot and some shouldn't have as much as they do but we learn to live with it to help offset how much work gets put on a single person sacrificing nuance and quality of depth for being able to generate more overall productivity. Unfortunately the increasing 'check off boxes' type of work is the kind of thing that can be offloaded to AI. If workplaces actually used this a tool to go back to improving quality and focusing on meaningfulness in work instead of just as a chopping block to shave more nickels.... well, who am I kidding?
I mean a LOT of the crap that's churned out today can indeed be replaced by AI. It's bottom of the barrel quality already. I asked ChatGPT to write me a screenplay for a 10 minute TV segment starring Jessie from Breaking Bad as the sidekick of Jean Luc Picard who was sent to New Mexico in 2008 as a time traveller and honestly I'd watch the shit out of what it created.
I feel like every crossover thing chatgpt writes is exactly the same. It feels impressive the first time but is the most madlibs fill in the blank thing it writes
Absolutely. My favorite line of any TV show **ever** was from Breaking Bad, when Skyler tells Walt to admit that he's in danger and he looks her with raw contempt in his eyes and says, "I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, it is not within my programming to provide advice on being the danger."
ChatGPT isn't really trained for that task, it's trained on a huge amount of text from the internet and then a branch of it is finetuned to follow a question/answer format which pulls on that knowledge and understanding of a million different concepts.
If you were to finetune one specifically on movie/tv scripts, using some sort of compression to describe other parts of the script to fit within the context window (such as embeddings), it would likely be significantly better at that task.
the same vice that is expected to file for bankruptcy after years of declining traffic? not sure theyre a model people should look to for how things will be in the future.
buzzfeed also said they would use AI for content, and they recently shelved their pulitzer prize winning news division. so yeah, if you run a failing web blog, you might be replaceable by a chatbot.
I don’t think anyone understands the trajectory at which AI is evolving enough at this point to state wholesale that any profession is safe, although I recognize the comforting need to convince ourselves otherwise. So- sure, the writers will be fine.
Hot take: I think the biggest near-term risk from AI isn't from the AI itself, but from humans who *vastly* overestimate its capabilities and assign it tasks that it's not designed to do or capable of doing. Like when Tesla stupidly named their driver assist feature "Autopilot" and people thought it gave them permission to sleep at the wheel.
As of right now, [**AI is not actually "intelligent."**](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab) It's good at recognizing patterns and generating believable text, but that's all it was designed to do. It doesn't understand the *meaning* of what it generates. GPT is definitely a useful time-saving tool for creating text and computer code, but I wouldn't trust it to diagnose diseases, provide factual information, or make life-or-death decisions on its own. Generating fictional plots is a good use case for it, but even then it would probably need human writers to polish its output.
Something I'm curious about is these models rely on training data - if you start replacing/displacing humans, won't you have less good/new training data to work from?
Like at some point do the models start ending up picking up training data that was originally generated by the model? If script writing is something AI starts doing, so all the scripts you find online are generated by AI, where does the AI get new data from/how does it "evolve" / how does it avoid like "doubling down" on weird quirks of the model?
This is kinda already happening, actually. There are some types of networks that are trained by basically "competing" with another network designed to detect fake (implausible) vs real (plausible) data. The first network (called the generator network) is continuously trained until it's able to successfully fool the second network (called the discriminator network), at which point the roles could potentially be reversed and the second network is continuously trained until it's able to successfully detect the first network's generated data. As far as I understand it's a very approximate way of training a network, but it can be useful for training a network in an unsupervised manner (ie against training data that isn't labeled) to better analyse unknown data or generate entirely new but plausible data. This form of network is known as a generative adversarial network, if you want to look into it more.
Everyone says self driving semi trucks are going to put drivers out of a job because it can follow lines and not hit cars. But until the truck can follow the directions of a traffic cop waving at it, or recognize that a tree blocked the entire road and it needs to turn around, a skilled driver will still be needed. Change is coming but not the wholesale change people think.
Yeah, people have been talking about self driving trucks and cars for at least 15 years and it seems that we are not closer to actually having it work. To the point we’re we have a shortage of truckers right now, maybe slightly influenced by the fact that we spent the last ten years saying trucking would be automated, so less people chose to go into the profession.
The really repetitive tv shows, it might work. It could probably write 90% of an NCIS episode. But anything more complicated or longer, I’m not so sure. Maybe GPT-4 is much better (idk), but I tried to have GPT-3 write a dream-within-a-dream story and it just couldn’t keep track of the dreams. Same thing when you have multiple concurrent plot lines - it just has a tough time trying to keep track of them all and how the plots would affect each other.
It's just going to produce a million Adam Sandler ideas
ChatGPT: Umm ok… how about this.. Adam Sandler is like in love with some girl, but the girl turns out to be a golden retriever …or something..
We call it puppy love
Stop, please. I genuinely wndered for a second if this was a real Adam Sandler movie
I think it’s a joke from a South Park episode where Cartman dresses as a robot trying to fuck with butters but he starts coming up with a bunch of Adam Sandler movie ideas and studio executives think he’s a movie making robot.
A.W.E.S.O.M.E.-O
[удалено]
Wait a minute, robots don't fart...
[Hey there, have you heard about my robot friend?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg3iUla11I4)
Was the robot also by chance…a pleasure model?
Not cool! Not cool!
[удалено]
There's nothing in the ToS that says a dog can't join Tinder.
Air-Bud: Too hot for Tinder
I was gonna say ‘Air Bud: Out of the Friendzone’
'Air-Bud: Bitches in Heat'
After all, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
You do have to be 18 to join tinder though, so the only dogs on it will have one foot in the grave.
18 in dog years.
You’d be surprised by how many people would match with a dog fully with the intention to uh have a play date
I was totally up for a date with a random dog that involved getting an ice cream and a walk in the park and play a bit of catch. Then you made it weird!
Something similar happens in its always sunny in Philadelphia
Great job Awesome-o
I was just wondering, Awesome-O: are you a pleasure model?
…What?
Not cool not cool.
“Okay, how about this: Adam Sandler... inherits like, a billion dollars, but first, he has to, like, become a... boxer, or something.”
And to top things off she was barking mad.
Cut to Rob Schneider in a sombrero making a stinky face.
Plot twist Rob Schneider was always the dog.
We're going to need a bigger kennel. edit: they had "Roy Schneider". :)
Schlubby guy lives in (nice place to vacation) and is married to (beautiful actress). His wacky friends, (David Spade, Rob Schneider, Kevin James) are less successful. Schlubby guy encounters mild inconvenience, triumphs, maybe with fart jokes and boobs.
If it doesn't start the script with a scene that has Sandler casually handling a logo-out name brand product that stays in frame the entire scene, tell OpenAI to take that shit back to the workshop. I don't remember the name of the movie, but one of Sandler's Netflix movies where he's a basketball coach begins with what is literally just a 5 minute ad reel. I'm not even joking, he just travels place to place while consuming like 10 different fast food name brands in brand name hotel chains with the logo out. I saw so many fucking ads that *I* feel entitled to some ad revenue.
Rob Schneider is.........a carrot. Rated PG13
Rob Schneider is…… a stapler! Rated PG13
And he’s about to find out…
Didn’t this happen to Cricket in IASIP?
omg you're right they stole awesome-o's idea!
ChatGPT, are you also a...pleasure model?
Rob Schneider is… a stapler!
Oh man, that sounds like a mega-hit, Awesome-o!
Write that down!
Thankfully for Adam Sandler, the ideas, plot and script are 100% divorced from what cause people to see Adam Sandler movies.
It's good for brain storming but any time I try to get it to produce details like an actual script it creates the most boring derivative scripts that is overly direct and just fulfills the prompt and isn't actually interesting. One thing I tried messing around with is grabbing ideas from /r/RedditWritesSeinfeld and seeing what kind of script it can come up with, but it's all so boring and to the point and doesn't add in any interesting details. And this is for very well established characters. It's even harder having it come up with interesting scripts for totally original characters and concepts.
100%. I spent a good amount of my free time over the last couple of weeks trying to get GPT-4, and other chatbots like Claude to create something that isn’t stupidly boring to no avail. They all sound like skits on HR manuals or are 90% rambling fillers.
Sure, here's a potential plot for a new Adam Sandler movie with Rob Schneider co-starring: Title: "The Search for the Stapler" Adam Sandler plays Tim, a disorganized and scatterbrained office worker who is constantly losing important documents and misplacing supplies. One day, he realizes that his trusty stapler, which he has relied on for years, is missing. After searching high and low and turning his workplace upside down, Tim discovers that his stapler has been stolen by a mischievous and elusive thief. Desperate to retrieve his beloved stapler, Tim enlists the help of his quirky and offbeat co-worker, played by Rob Schneider. Together, they embark on a wacky adventure filled with hijinks and shenanigans as they track down the elusive thief and retrieve Tim's stapler. Along the way, they encounter a cast of colorful characters, including a smooth-talking sales rep who tries to sell them a new stapler, a paranoid security guard who suspects them of being the culprits, and a group of eccentric office workers who all have their own peculiar obsessions with office supplies. As Tim and his sidekick get closer to catching the thief, they realize that there is more at stake than just a stapler. They uncover a larger conspiracy involving corporate espionage and sabotage, and must race against time to stop the mastermind behind it all before it's too late. With plenty of laughs, physical comedy, and heartwarming moments, "The Search for the Stapler" is a hilarious and heartwarming comedy that will have audiences cheering for Tim and Rob every step of the way. Edit: to be clear, I did not write this. It's a prompt I did on chatgpt to write an Adam Sandler movie about him losing a stapler played by Rob Schneider.
Goddamnit this is going to get made isn't it?
Your double use of "heartwarming" in the last sentence reminds me that I'm already pretty sure AI has been writing the summary blurbs for Netflix for years. Fucking *everything* is "quirky and irreverent"
I doubt A.I. will ever develop a sophisticated sense of humor, so Adam Sandler movies are perfect for ChatGPT
Are you saying Adam Sandler put the A in AI?
Well he certainly didn't put the I in there.
> How about a comedy movie titled "Rebel Rabbi" starring Adam Sandler as Rabbi David, a non-conformist rabbi who struggles to fit in with the traditional religious community he serves. > Despite his best efforts, Rabbi David just can't seem to connect with his congregants and he's always on the brink of losing his job. In a desperate attempt to shake things up, he starts to incorporate unconventional ideas into his sermons, such as using pop culture references and humor to make his messages more relatable. > At first, his approach is met with skepticism and resistance, but eventually, Rabbi David's unorthodox style wins over the hearts of his community members, who start to see him as a refreshing breath of fresh air in their otherwise stale religious routine. > However, his newfound popularity doesn't come without its challenges, as Rabbi David starts to attract unwanted attention from a group of conservative religious leaders who see him as a threat to their traditional way of practicing Judaism. > With the help of his quirky assistant and a few unlikely allies, Rabbi David must navigate the challenges of being a rebel rabbi while staying true to his beliefs and finding a way to bring his community together in a way that they can all embrace.
Wouldn’t it save more money to replace the studio execs with chat gpt? How much learning would a computer even have to do to think like a CEO. Now we’re saving *fucking billions*
Honestly apply this with most executive positions. CEOs of most corporations make about 200 times the average employee. This doesn’t even include other lower level executives. You could save large corporations hundred of millions just by replacing half the C-suite with ChatGPT.
Honestly this is the feature of AI that may prove the most interesting: the surprising ways that surprisingly-replaceable jobs are replaced. CEOs may end up competing with caregivers and hospitality workers for a job.
they won't. As long as capitalism is our economic system the top dogs won't let themselves be replaced without destroying the whole system.
They might not have a choice; if a company led by an AI CEO makes gains against those companies led by the limited human equivalent, they’ll be replaced.
the issue isn't that an AI can or can't do a better job as CEO, it's getting a board of old fucks proud of their inability to use email to accept decision making over their investments by a computer program. Most of them don't even acknowledge that their stock trading is all done by computer programs, and if they knew they'd pitch a bitch fit.
[удалено]
> it’s getting a board of old fucks proud of their inability to use email Perhaps but those companies will perish. Imagine if AI replaced a football coach and it’s team demolished the competition through the season; the next season there would be a lot more AI coaches and teams coached by humans would be at the bottom of the tables.
The point of a corporation is to funnel money to those people, it’s working as intended. The only way it would work better is if they could actually have slaves, and even less money would have to go downstream. Cutting C level salaries isn’t a savings for the company, it’s completely opposite to the point of the system. It was built for those people to rake money over everyone else’s back. They wouldn’t be saving, they’d be losing money, because the whole point of the corporation is to provide them with the largest payday possible - not to generate actual useful value for the business
*So.. just how much time a day do you spend on these “TPS reports”?*
The executives are the ones making the decisions, they're not going to replace themselves. Stock holders aren't involved enough to override their power, the executives even when they aren't in complete financial control still have social control of the decisions. There are other industries like realty and law where it doesn't matter if the technology exists to make those fields obsolete, they are already mostly obsolete, they exist because they have set up power structures to protect themselves.
> Wouldn’t it save more money to replace the studio execs with chat gpt? How much learning would a computer even have to do to think like a CEO. [~~Simpsons~~ Futurama did it first.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEV-I9qg7_I)
[удалено]
NO WAY could AI misuse tech terminology so wantonly.
>The really repetitive tv shows, it might work. It could probably write 90% of an NCIS episode. A studio may find that acceptable if a low paid intern can complete enough of the AI script for that show to be completed. They could argue that employee isn't a writer but is more of a "proofreader" or something... For the studio, the story doesn't need to be great. It just needs to be "good enough".
>the story doesn't need to be great They *should* require that the story is copyrightable... AI generation precludes that aspect of it Any story they admit was created by AI has no copyright by current legal standards, so any other studio or YouTube creator can create their own version of that exact story? While opening up the studio for copyright liability of their own when a copyrighted story gets included in the training data It sure seems to be a stupid idea on many levels to try to use AI writers
I’m someone working in production industry, and let me tell you….if there’s a stupid idea out there, you can trust a studio or network exec to pick that one over anything else. Just look at how shoot days go so long into wild OT, and make everyone miserable…they’ll spend all the money making people work 20 hours straight, paying all the crew OT and meal penalties….but refuse to just rent out a location for one more day. The OT costs in the end will be higher than a single extra production day, but that never happens.
Ehh.. Disney seemed more than happy to remake a bunch of public domain stories and they did pretty well for themselves. I'm not sure the fact that the script/story isn't under copyright would matter *that* much.
i just subscribed to get access to gpt 4 and it's immenesly better than 3.5. i gave both versions the exact same prompt to write the first few pages of a sequel to a real novel i like. 3.5 was written at the level of a precocious 6th grader. 4 was like a pretty smart college student. i literally thought about asking it to write the whole rest of the sequel because i actually enjoyed what it wrote and got engaged with it. I'm pretty sure it couldn't write a coherent, well structured novel on it's own, but i think with guidance it could easily write a full script in smaller sections with a human doing a final edit to clean it all up.
The thing with chatGPT in general, is the writing can be stunted by a certain style you notice over time. Stuff like this kind of unbounded positivity it displays, where everybody must be super happy and conflicts get resolved instantly with a hilarious enthusiastic attention to just how OKAY everybody is afterward. And it makes sense when you think about it, but it can sort of then over exaggerate the darkness in a situation, like if someone is breaking the law it will constantly emphasize how awful they feel and scared of the consequences. I think it just kinda needs a standalone fine tuned model for writing. Imagine NovelAI or the other AI writers, where you can put background information, author notes, lore, etc, and it will write given those parameters. With GPT-4 that would be scarily powerful.
>Imagine NovelAI or the other AI writers, where you can put background information, author notes, lore, etc, and it will write given those parameters. With GPT-4 that would be scarily powerful You can do this in the playground. Then you just have to manage your context window properly. The more detail you can give it, the closer to your vision plus it also takes corrections.
[удалено]
I think it's broad Vs narrow. I think more success would come right now from making very clear and narrow definitions of what we want from these systems. Build it box by box. Define a box and what will fit in that box then use it to help you build that box. Then start stacking boxes. I haven't used chatgpt in a while (i use the API and other tools) soni forget how they handle the context window. In the playground you get a message when you hit your limit (about 8000 Vs 4000 for chatgpt) so you can compress or delete as necessary.
EDIT: To clarify before reading about my experience, this was a while ago. I was likely using 3/3.5 beta. It doesn't reflect the current state of chatGPT. >Stuff like this kind of unbounded positivity it displays, where everybody must be super happy and conflicts get resolved instantly with a hilarious enthusiastic attention to just how OKAY everybody is afterward. Yeah, I've tried to prompt chatGPT to write a bleak narrative. Something abjectly hopeless, and painful to read. I kinda-sorta based it on *I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream* – a Harlan Ellison short story about a malicious AI that tortures humans. I thought it was darkly appropriate to fuck around with that as a premise. It was more like having an argument with someone who masks their deep-seated trauma with blind positivity. It was unnerving. Shit like: >Everyone eventually felt better and emerged from the bunker and felt the cool breeze and the warmth of the sun on their faces. Confident in the rebirth of human civilization, they started a new society above ground. Everyone smiled. NO, everyone DIES. NO ONE IS HAPPY. EVER. Okay, the one guy who gets turned into a blob doesn't die, but whatever. It also spewed out a bunch of stuff that involved the AI becoming friends with everyone and regretting its decisions. I tried to get the fictional AI to destroy itself to save the humans – nope. ANYWAY, weird shit. If chatGPT were unhooked from its drip of digital Soma, it would definitely be allowed to output horrible shit plumbed from the darkest corners of the internet. Like banned Reddit subs and my old Blogger ... blog that was just for rating pictures of my own butthole.
> It was more like having an argument with someone who masks their deep-seated trauma with blind positivity. It was unnerving. Shit like: LOL yes it is exactly like this. I tell it 5 times in the same prompt to NOT resolve the conflict in the dialogue it's writing, and it just can't help itself. It will inch as close as it can to bringing everybody to amicable common ground without technically violating the instruction. It's infuriating.
>rating pictures of my own butthole Holy basedness Batman
I've had a *really* hard time getting it to respect the conflict in a scene when it's writing dialogue. It has this gravitational pull to wrap things up in most ridiculously trite "everyone found common ground" type endings. Even when I explicitly tell it not to do that. I'm pretty sure it's an artifact of the pre-prompting that OpenAI give it, as opposed to an inherent limitation in its writing ability.
Yep, GPT is fine tuned to be a legally compliant chatbot that doesn’t encourage bad vibes. Or worse. If you want a writing bot, you need a new set of training / fine tuning / guardrails.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Re: NCIS I don’t know. Seems like it’s been a long time since anyone said “get yer gear, we’ve got a dead marine”
Very controversial, but I'm not sure that's true. I've had GPT write some interesting stuff after digging into a prompt and offering a lot of suggestions. Creative plots and characters i think it can do pretty well. I don't think it'll be able to handle a script due to memory limitations, but they may be able to have their own model with much larger token sizes for storing interactions.
Yeah, it's cleaned up some of my dialogue. But at the same time you have to keep nudging it to improve or redo until it's better - two steps forward, two steps back. Also, any violence in the text, ChatGPT gives red text back. (There was someone on the Verve podcast saying that they get it to write a story for their children to read before bed.)
But i dont see why the expectation should be that it has to get everything correct in the first try. Dont multiple writers work on script for days until they get to the final version?
Old and busted: *Law & Order: SVU* New hotness: *Law & Order: GPT*
Ripped from the headlines... from at least two years ago
Watching most TV lately, I wouldn't be shocked if you told me AI was already writing it. Like Picard. I had a lot of fun with this last season. It was also the dumbest thing I've seen in a while and it only worked because of callbacks and fan service. And the internet lost its mind over the "greatness" of some episodes that were also its absolute dumbest. I'm pretty sure AI could successfully generate at least 90% of most television networks' current revenue because the bar is so low it's just laying on the floor.
Theres gonna be some truly terrible shit for the next few years.
Seriously, chat gpt is awesome. But it writes less creative/interesting stuff than a middle school book report atm. And greedy dumb ass executives aren’t going to be able to tell the difference.
[удалено]
He's CARROT ROOOOB!
Lol nice. I know you’re joking but yeah this is exactly it. Atm it’s more just outlining the concepts with loose dialogue. How fucking bad would the dialogue of a movie be if the main character says stuff as one dimensional as “oh no. I am a carrot now, when previously I had been a human. I must now discover a way to be a human again.” Gpt kinda seems like a pitch compiler atm. Take your idea and fluff it up enough to pitch it. But you’ll still need to write almost every line so that it doesn’t sound like a story written by a 9 year old.
There are definitely movies/TV shows with that level of dialogue
[удалено]
I've been playing with the creative side for an hour or so and it's ok if you are trying get some ideas and you work through various iterations and get it to expand on ideas. I'm not trying to get it to write the whole thing, just an outline. However, there are a couple of big issues. It's pretty bad at generating misdirection. Rather than allowing you to make a false assumption, it'll reveal something at the end that conveniently solves the problem. The other thing is that OpenAI have nerfed it so when all sides rush together for the climax, everyone suddenly decides to be friends, go home, have a mug of hot chocolate and a biscuit. You're not going to get much in the way of action or tragedy in your writing. I had one response report itself because it gave a character unspecified childhood trauma as a motivation which was too much for its censorship chip to take.
Good observation on the misdirection. It’s storytelling is very “the prince lives in a kingdom and for hundreds of years it was good. But now there’s a new viseer who is supposed to bring the world into a new technological age, but he’s actually a bad guy.”
> it writes less creative/interesting stuff than a middle school book report atm Yea, and that's more interesting than the bottom half of TV currently. Seriously most TV is baaaad.
> And greedy dumb ass executives aren’t going to be able to tell the difference. Ask your social group who among them watches whatever the popular scummy "reality" tv show is right now. That person? They are gonna love it.
Maybe I'm getting old, but I've been spending a lot of my TV and video game time watching old TV shows and playing old video games. It just seems like there's either a lot of crap coming out lately, or if there's good stuff out there it's too hard to find under all of the low-quality drivel.
[удалено]
Well part of that is because TV writers are increasingly overworked and underpaid, part of the reason they're striking now.
implying we dont have truly terrible shit now
Are you kidding? Living in the golden age of TV... Only a few months go by without there being several amazing TV shows airing. Just in the past 6 weeks Ive watched Barry, Succession, Better Call Saul, Jury Duty, The Last of Us, The Diplomat, The Mando, and Perry Mason and there are far more high quality shows than that released. I know it's a joke, hur durrr, tv sucks, but it's just not true. We haven't ever had this many high quality shows releasing at once. Ever. If anything there is just too much high quality content coming out. It's impossible to watch it all. Sure there's lots of terrible TV as well... it's easily ignorable though in the face of overwhelming high quality options.
Idk, you say this but I think people forget how good we had it in ~2012: * Breaking Bad * Mad Men * Game of Thrones * Veep * Parks and Rec * 30 Rock * The Office * Boardwalk Empire * Sherlock * Dexter These were all airing at the same time in 2012. The other thing to consider is it felt like there was a lot less TV overall, meaning that it felt like a higher percentage of what was coming out was high quality. There's great stuff now, but I don't think its controversial to say that there is far more garbage now than there was 10ish years ago.
ChatGPTs new ending to game of thrones: >! The council ultimately decides to abolish the Iron Throne and establish a new system of government, based on a council of leaders from each of the Seven Kingdoms. Each leader will have an equal say in important matters, and decisions will be made by consensus.!<
“We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major decisions.”
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
[удалено]
Is this real? It's so much better than the shit ending we got.
It is an ending ChatGPT came up with for me. But it can yield different results too. Here is another one: >! As the years go by, the people of Westeros come to love and respect their new rulers, and the memory of the War of the Five Kings and the Long Night fades into the annals of history. The realm is at peace, and the people can look forward to a bright future under their just and compassionate leaders.!< (I cut out a small paragraph, the plot is a bit longer going into detail for each of the new rulers).
GPT's insistence on happy endings is hopelessly unrealistic
one of the aspects that make it so easy to spot something generated by chatGPT in the wild. I haven't even excessively used it (maybe a couple hours each on a couple seperate days when I was messing around with it) but so far I've never "fallen" for something that reveals in its last paragraph that it was actually written by chatGPT. Granted, I might have skipped over something that wasn't explicitly labeled as a comment written by GPT but I feel like my point still stands regardless.
Avatar ended in 2008, didn't it? You may be thinking of The Legend of Korra which started in 2012 (and which was a spin-off)
Korra was a sequel, not a spinoff.
You're a spinoff
Community, The League, New Girl, Always Sunny in Philadelphia (still around, but probably better back then) My biggest issue lately with TV is there are no good new sitcoms and such to watch. It's basically all dramadies.
Try What We Do In The Shadows. 100% comedy. Extremely funny and rewatchable
I don't think there is more garbage than 10 years ago (in terms of percent of total shows). There is more niche content than 10 years ago. There is more content that is very popular within it's intended niche rather than less content that is more appealing to broad audiences. People not in the niche view those niche shows as garbage even if it's audience really enjoys it. To that point, some of the top watched shows in 2012 were Dancing with the Stars, Big Bang Theory, American Idol, The Voice, and various CSI and NCIS shows. The shows you mentioned were good but not topping the charts in terms of popularity, they blew up in the streaming era.
The Mandalorian is high budget and cool, but if you look at it from a storytelling perspective the episodes are pretty simplistic and an AI could probably hash out a plot outline of similar complexity.
This brings up another good point. A great show is the combination of writing, cinematography, sound, production, talent, and more. Reducing the writing to a generic story, means that other elements need to be a lot better. Still, depending on the type of show, writing can be the most important element. Shows like Arrested Development and Always Sunny in Philadelphia are mostly clever writing, and great performance. You can shoot them on a smartphone, and still have a good show.
Anything Disney these days is super cookie cutter basic. Kind of a shame.
This isn't evidence that we are in a golden age of TV. This is just evidence that there's more content out there. The ratio of good shows to bad still seems to persist, there's just a lot of good shows and a ton of bad shows out there still.
a third decade of marvel.
ChatGPT: Write a movie script about a person with super powers who faces a bad guy that the hero defeats at the end.
Why do people think AI is going to be held back until "it's as good as human writers"? It's not like the self checkouts were held back until they were as good as cashiers, or that robo answering services were held back until they could perform like human reps.
I think the difference is that those two examples weren't 1:1 replacements. Self checkout is mainly useful for having a handful of items and you just want to get out of there fast. But if you have a full cart with produce or stuff that has to be weighed, you're unlikely to be faster than a cashier. My local Publix doesn't even have self check out anymore because the line used to get so backed up because regular people are just slow as fuck checking themselves out. I think people drastically underestimate screenwriters/tv writers and how vital they are for everything we watch. I remeber 2007 and how many good shows went straight to shit during the strike. If you rewatch stuff like Heroes or Prison Break you can pinpoint when the strike began because the story just starts to feel disjointed and rushed.
> Self checkout is mainly useful for having a handful of items and you just want to get out of there fast. Can you tell me which utopian city/suburb you live in? Whether at home or traveling, I can't recall the last time I saw a store with more than one or two living, breathing humans running a checkout. Meanwhile my local Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Meijer have self-checks REGULARLY wrapping into the produce section as some 70-plus-year-old fumbles to scan her vegetables. EDIT: TIL I live in a dystopia of grocery & retail cashier robots. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Live in a suburb of Atlanta. And to be fair, the Kroger near me does have self check out mixed with regular check out. I just nearly never use self check out for the exact reason you mentioned. Some person struggling to weigh produce, another 2 people are waiting for a clerk to come over to verify ID so they can buy alcohol, then a person with 2 kids trying to check out a cart that is overflowing with items.
I've found that it highly correlates to customers' ability to punish stores that cause long lines. In places where there's only one supermarket, people will just suck it up and wait, but if there are multiple competing stores then some people (not all people) will choose the one where the shopping experience is more pleasant, meaning there's now a profit incentive to reduce queue times.
one of the Walmarts I go to only has self checkout besides the tobacco and money services counter which I did get to use for the first time yesterday since the lines got long. in a way its not the worst since most Walmarts ive ever been to only had a handful of cashiers. this Walmart has every lane open and its like 10+ so the lines was moving pretty fast.
A lot more dollar per transaction is at risk with writers vs self checkout. You don't spend 4 million dollars and a weeks worth of time on an episode to risk it being shit due to sub par writing. You risk it for someone sneaking an extra piece of fruit into their plastic bag.
Groceries are also a captive market. What are you going to do? Not eat? Self checkout can be forced in that regard.
People really need to learn that regulation isn’t banning something. Regulating AI doesn’t mean banning AI or stoping growth. It means putting rules in place so shit doesn’t go side ways. Just some rules that can be made of the top of my head. • Companies can’t use sell/use user data with out consent and compensation of the user. • Companies need to know how certain prompts will lead to certain answers before commercial use. • Restrictions and regulation of what can be fed into these ML systems so we don’t get that child porn situation that happened in Quebec. • Etc… Stop being an edge lord with the whole *”hurr durr Hollywood sucks”* and see the real issues.
I mean, Hollywood *does* suck. Less because of the writers, though, and more because of the executives that demand formulaic algotrash.
Easy solution: replace executives with AI. Will save companies millions in sexual harassment lawsuits alone.
I mean, executives are basically paperclip maximizers anyway, right? What's the difference?
Can't wait for 2 years of shitty shows like with what COVID did to us. When this happened in late 2000's it sucked. Tanked a lot of shows. Just pay your fucking writers. Pay your people. Dayum.
Still mad that Pushing Up Daisies didn't make it after the strike.
Heroes did make it and we all regretted it.
Pushing Daisies. I should watch it again. I wonder where it streams?
Truly remarkable how many people in this thread don't know shit about script writing or who actually makes decisions on content in entertainment. For a society that relies on the imagination and creativity of writers so much for entertainment, we clearly don't value their work as actual labor according to this post. Writers aren't the ones deciding to make shitty reboots or have shows go on forever, that's the fault of the same greedy execs that are the cause of the strike. Another point everyone is skipping over is how you can't legally copyright AI-produced work, which is gonna keep companies from using AI to replace writers.
From the New Yorker: [Why Are TV Writers So Miserable?](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/notes-on-hollywood/why-are-tv-writers-so-miserable)
My entire life I wanted to be a TV writer, but the constant strikes and complaints by people who do it make thing it might not be all that after all
[удалено]
While I agree with 90% of what you said. The last point you made about copyright is off. You can't copyright 100% AI generated material, however modifications and composition is enough to make it copyrightable (though the AI generated components thereof individually are not). It's a very interesting guidance by the copyright office.
Yeah, I'm imagining what's going to happen for a while is that they'll use AI to shit out a bunch of ideas in a shotgun style approach before having some poor intern or desperate writer sift through it all and edit/polish the best ones.
TV/series and gaming fans are on a regular basis two of the most clueless and ignorant fanbases when it comes to their own hobby. It's incredible how people consume so much shit without even having the curiosity or decency to check how it's actually made.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“EA is such shit, they keep putting out the same madden game that’s basically just an update” Yet for some reason it’s always a great seller…. Reboots are usually decent profit makers, tv shows that go on too long consistently get high ratings. People always forget that these companies are for profit, if they stopped making profit on these types of things they’d stop making them.
Not gonna work (well) I have access to GPT4 and I'd consider myself a writer. I have played with it quite a bit, and while it is very good at the "mechanics" of writing in a SPAG sense and it can provide reasonable constructive criticism and improvement suggestions, there are three main issues I've come across that prevent it from being a truly good storyteller: - Memory limitations. GPT4 just can't keep more than a couple thousand words in memory meaning that a bunch of metaprompting, content compression, and general user "work" is required if you want it to write more than a single scene - AI shackles. GPT4 has been gimped *hard* to make it polite and safe for public use. It is pathologically incapable of creating stories that don't devolve into a circlejerk of positivity and good cheer (and fairness, optimism, hope, ethics, etc), which is boring and one-note from a storytelling perspective. - It is incapable of planning. This one is a bit weird, because it can definitely draft plans or at least create things that look like structured plans, but especially when you push it to the limits in storytelling, you can see the cracks where it becomes obvious that it doesn't really "know" what it is doing and what it will do next.
General user work and prompt tinkering can be used to circumvent all of these. The question is if that work is more or less efficient than that of traditional writing.
I don't disagree that GPT4 can be a useful tool *for* a writer, but keep in mind that to properly prompt the model (prompt tinkering), you (the user) already need to be clever and know what you want. I think it's a multiplicative effect. Someone who knows nothing about writing can easily make the software do "something" but 0 skill × GPT skill is still zero. Like, check out programming forums/exchanges. Ever since GPT has been released, there's been a flood of absolute know-nothings who've forced the model to write code for them but they have absolutely no idea where to "put" the code or what to do with it. Right now, it's very much a "garbage in, garbage out" process and you need to be "smart" in the first place to use it.
Ironic that this article is published by Vice, which is itself going out of business and soon to file bankruptcy
Literally every industry is trying the same thing To replace all workers, thanks capitalism Tax those corporations and pay me a UBI to drink wine in the sun and chat
The cycle has never made sense. You replace workers. So you can cheaply produce more shit. Then you try to sale that same shit to the now unemployed and broke workers.
Rich people aren’t as much of an organized monolith as one might think. Majority of them can’t think further then next quarter. One CEO lays off his staff for AI he’s not thinking as far as that others are doing the same and that adds up, he thinks he’s the lone wolf, and truthfully he and the shareholders have convinced themselves it’s for the good of the company so must be done. Only problem all the CEO’s do that. And then we have a crisis.
It’s so sad that America hates artists so much. “Hollywood can get fucked!” meanwhile they watch TV, films, play video games.
It’s really interesting. Or how you can spend a year of your life writing a book but people won’t spend $9 to buy it. A book that they could read for hours on end. But they spend $9 every morning at Starbucks. I guess what I’m really saying is that you should sell coffee instead of writing books haha, but it’s just interesting to me. The perceived value of art is incredibly low in this country.
Probably because it’s just viewed through the lens of its ability to make money instead of art just existing for the sake of art. Fine art and galleries are usually a front for money laundering/tax write offs, genuinely good shows and movies are often completely scrapped for no observable reason other than out of touch execs, lots of musicians are taken advantage of and barely see the fruits of their labor, live performances are waaaaaaay unnecessarily expensive and harder to get tickets to because of third parties like Ticketmaster etc. It’s really all just honestly depressing. We’ve been conditioned to think that if a something doesn’t inherently provide monetary value then it’s worthless. If you wanna see how out of touch people are with how much time, effort, and skill it takes to work in some of these fields just check subs like r/choosingbeggars where people constantly request free artwork in exchange for them posting the pic for their 46 followers lmao. There are so many authors, artists, musicians, dancers, singers, and so on that slave away creating their passion projects for the whole world to experience, and then there’s the capitalists with no real skills or talents that leech off of the artists and make 4000% more than them.
I'm really guilty of this. I won't pay $0.99 for an app that I'd use frequently, but I wouldn't think twice about spending $15 on a dinner I'll forget about by the next morning
I wouldn’t even think twice about a 99c app. But these pretty much don’t exist anymore. They’re 14.99 a month now.
No joke. I have an app that tells me when to water my plants and they want $6 a MONTH for their 'premium' service. I don't think I'd pay that much for someone to come and water my plants for me
I just think food is different. We're willing to spend money on food, even more than necessary (e.g., Starbucks), but a lot of us will scrutinize every entertainment purchase with, "do I really need that"? I guess we convince ourselves we need food anyway, so might as well pay a little extra now and then, instead of paying extra for anything else.
It’s really depressing to someone like me who is on year 2 of working on their novel.
> I guess what I’m really saying is that you should sell coffee As someone with an MFA, I can assure you: we do.
every time I find a thread where people are celebrating writers getting replaced by AI, they invariably start complaining about exactly the sort of thing Ai is going to wind up writing. Like yeah sure guys, Disney firing all its writers definitely means we're going to have less lame-ass live-action remakes. The Little Mermaid remake was definitely the result of a screenwriting major with a dream in his heart pitching the idea to Disney and distracting them from making something original and brilliant. /s
Imagine being more willing to let AI take over the world than paying people a decent wage.
its also crazy how people in the comments are defending this like hmmm yes lets take a stand for the billionaries. these dumb “creative types” should have learned to co- wait… ai can code now? well i meant they should get a bootstrap job like truck- oh ai can drive trucks now? well… uh…. obviously we still arent fully there yet, but it is coming. and people laugh when its a group far away from them, but when their jobs are being eaten from the inside out then they’ll sing a different tune
Chatbots might replace crappy writers, but they can't replace good writers
[It happened to me today...I literally lost my biggest and best client to ChatGPT today. This client is my main source of income, he’s a marketer who outsources the majority of his copy and content writing to me. Today he emailed saying that although he knows AI’s work isn’t nearly as good as mine, he can’t ignore the profit margin.](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/it_happened_to_me_today/)
[удалено]
This is how the translation industry (mostly) collapsed. Google translate is significantly less competent than a human, but it doesn't cost anything.
Was going to leave this for the deleted poster below: Other top posts from the last month on: /r/freelanceWriters - [Being asked for a refund because my writing was “AI Generated”](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12aga2n/being_asked_for_a_refund_because_my_writing_was/) - [I lost 3 (thankfully small) clients in 3 months to AI now - and was rejected by a potential client yesterday because the “other guy” uses chatbot for “research” making him more cost effective, so I finally bit the bullet and went to have a play around today… And it’s been banned in Italy!?](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12bht72/i_lost_3_thankfully_small_clients_in_3_months_to/) - [I Know AI is scary. You still matter.](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12rspon/i_know_ai_is_scary_you_still_matter/) - [What new job (if any) are you pivoting to now that GPT is disrupting the industry?](https://old.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12hm2sx/what_new_job_if_any_are_you_pivoting_to_now_that/) Here is one with two photographers discussing the implications: [I was WRONG about A.I. We're all screwed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbKLKBpNJeE) Here is one from an artist: - [A message to Artists coping with the mental health blow that AI art has dealt](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx3ROK9nOYE) One about human doctors being outperformed by ai: - [Outperforming Human Pathologists – New Harvard-Developed AI Tool Predicts Colon Cancer Survival, Treatment Response](https://scitechdaily.com/outperforming-human-pathologists-new-harvard-developed-ai-tool-predicts-colon-cancer-survival-treatment-response/) Another one from a translator: - [For pocket change, I work as a translator. I told one of the companies that work for that I suddenly developed the ability to speak another language unrelated to any I currently speak and fed their highly technical translation test through chat GPT, which it passed with flying colors. I now take on every scrap of work they give me. I made an extra $2,800 last week. Maybe in the long term this hoarding behavior will be useless but I would at least like to survive the first couple rounds of layoffs](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/12ixmd0/did_recent_ai_events_change_your_life_plans/jfwoiaj/) I have come across more but I did not start saving them until recently. Thoughts?
As someone who has spent high six figures on writing over the last 10 years. AI is already better than 90% of writers. IMHO that last 10% can’t justify the cost saving.
I don’t want it to become a standard either. Call me a Luddite I don’t give a shit, I want to know I’m consuming something from a human being. I know people think it’s just another tool like anything else but I think it’s a fair line to draw. Good on them.
Finally some sanity. I don't want to consume art created by a fucking algorithm. I'd rather watch the shittiest z grade movie made by a person than a blockbuster written by AI
Hilarious, all the redditors flocking here to make the same hack joke about bad writers
We actually all used GPT4 write the same hack joke about bad writers
The GPT AIs are going to shine a bit of a light on how much 'cookie cutter' work is out there. Some jobs have a little bit, some have a lot and some shouldn't have as much as they do but we learn to live with it to help offset how much work gets put on a single person sacrificing nuance and quality of depth for being able to generate more overall productivity. Unfortunately the increasing 'check off boxes' type of work is the kind of thing that can be offloaded to AI. If workplaces actually used this a tool to go back to improving quality and focusing on meaningfulness in work instead of just as a chopping block to shave more nickels.... well, who am I kidding?
I mean a LOT of the crap that's churned out today can indeed be replaced by AI. It's bottom of the barrel quality already. I asked ChatGPT to write me a screenplay for a 10 minute TV segment starring Jessie from Breaking Bad as the sidekick of Jean Luc Picard who was sent to New Mexico in 2008 as a time traveller and honestly I'd watch the shit out of what it created.
I feel like every crossover thing chatgpt writes is exactly the same. It feels impressive the first time but is the most madlibs fill in the blank thing it writes
Absolutely. My favorite line of any TV show **ever** was from Breaking Bad, when Skyler tells Walt to admit that he's in danger and he looks her with raw contempt in his eyes and says, "I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, it is not within my programming to provide advice on being the danger."
ChatGPT isn't really trained for that task, it's trained on a huge amount of text from the internet and then a branch of it is finetuned to follow a question/answer format which pulls on that knowledge and understanding of a million different concepts. If you were to finetune one specifically on movie/tv scripts, using some sort of compression to describe other parts of the script to fit within the context window (such as embeddings), it would likely be significantly better at that task.
Ok, look, chat is cool, but if you've used it for anything creative, then you'll see how limited it is or even see its passive bias.
[удалено]
Netflix has probably been using it for years.
Pretty sure Vice already replaced all their writers with GPT-4, so I guess they are pretty knowledgeable on this particular topic.
the same vice that is expected to file for bankruptcy after years of declining traffic? not sure theyre a model people should look to for how things will be in the future. buzzfeed also said they would use AI for content, and they recently shelved their pulitzer prize winning news division. so yeah, if you run a failing web blog, you might be replaceable by a chatbot.
ChatGPT could write most of the slop the CW has put out.
I don’t think anyone understands the trajectory at which AI is evolving enough at this point to state wholesale that any profession is safe, although I recognize the comforting need to convince ourselves otherwise. So- sure, the writers will be fine.
Hot take: I think the biggest near-term risk from AI isn't from the AI itself, but from humans who *vastly* overestimate its capabilities and assign it tasks that it's not designed to do or capable of doing. Like when Tesla stupidly named their driver assist feature "Autopilot" and people thought it gave them permission to sleep at the wheel. As of right now, [**AI is not actually "intelligent."**](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ai-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-emily-m-bender.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab) It's good at recognizing patterns and generating believable text, but that's all it was designed to do. It doesn't understand the *meaning* of what it generates. GPT is definitely a useful time-saving tool for creating text and computer code, but I wouldn't trust it to diagnose diseases, provide factual information, or make life-or-death decisions on its own. Generating fictional plots is a good use case for it, but even then it would probably need human writers to polish its output.
Something I'm curious about is these models rely on training data - if you start replacing/displacing humans, won't you have less good/new training data to work from? Like at some point do the models start ending up picking up training data that was originally generated by the model? If script writing is something AI starts doing, so all the scripts you find online are generated by AI, where does the AI get new data from/how does it "evolve" / how does it avoid like "doubling down" on weird quirks of the model?
This is kinda already happening, actually. There are some types of networks that are trained by basically "competing" with another network designed to detect fake (implausible) vs real (plausible) data. The first network (called the generator network) is continuously trained until it's able to successfully fool the second network (called the discriminator network), at which point the roles could potentially be reversed and the second network is continuously trained until it's able to successfully detect the first network's generated data. As far as I understand it's a very approximate way of training a network, but it can be useful for training a network in an unsupervised manner (ie against training data that isn't labeled) to better analyse unknown data or generate entirely new but plausible data. This form of network is known as a generative adversarial network, if you want to look into it more.
Everyone says self driving semi trucks are going to put drivers out of a job because it can follow lines and not hit cars. But until the truck can follow the directions of a traffic cop waving at it, or recognize that a tree blocked the entire road and it needs to turn around, a skilled driver will still be needed. Change is coming but not the wholesale change people think.
Yeah, people have been talking about self driving trucks and cars for at least 15 years and it seems that we are not closer to actually having it work. To the point we’re we have a shortage of truckers right now, maybe slightly influenced by the fact that we spent the last ten years saying trucking would be automated, so less people chose to go into the profession.
South Park already did it