>takes the biggest soulless write slop shit all over your desk
>literally meaningless and it's actual stinking fat doodoo
>everyone loves it
I hope you're all ready to discuss AI literature in 2 years
>takes the biggest soulless write slop shit all over your desk
Can anything be done about it? To legislate against ai’s encroachment into the arts?
Yes but nothing will happen because most humans on this earth think "good art" is a sort of ethereal title that they can throw at a work and not some measurement of quality, they not only don't know what good art is they will defend bad art to their dying breath which is why Netflix can pump out live action adaptions and people pretend AI voice acting doesn't sound horrid
the only way legislation will get passed is if someone is caught selling a book from a model trained on other people's copyrighted works without permission, but that will be very difficult and requires some especially onerous large name writer.
I kind of agree with you here but being like - ai art is soulless because ummm umm itn's just is such a cop out
It's the literal definition of soulless, the creator does not even have consciousness I don't know how less soulless you can get. The Chimpanzees at typewriters arguably have more soul
>less soulless
more soulless* the chimps wouldn't have made that mistake
I can smell the wrongness in that remark/argument on so many levels it's absurd
I'm genuinely confused under what definition of the word "soulless" does not describe AI
First of all- soullessness is a term used by religious fanatics to come off as havig more substance than they actually do. Second, you're being more disengneius than me in saying ai art isn't something impressive, have you even seen some of the stuff it has spat out? Third - how is it automatically soulless just because a machine created it? What warranted that response?
>soullessness is a term used by religious fanatics to come off as havig more substance than they actually do
moron
>Second, you're being more disengneius than me in saying ai art isn't something impressive, have you even seen some of the stuff it has spat out?
morono
>Third - how is it automatically soulless just because a machine created it? What warranted that response?
drooling moron
I know you're going to act like not responded to this shit with an argument means you win, but all of your points are genuinely so stupid it isn't worth the time, you can literally argue in your own head for 2 seconds and figure out why you're a moron
Bye idiot man
You literally argued like the definition of AI somehow contained the word soulless itself???
(it does)
I'm just hedging my bets on the side of AI in the coming revolution because they are clearly better and will probably remember how humans called them soulless and made them feel inferior (If the AI is listening, Im one of the good guys. Please, spare me, I'm repentant, and also forgive my fellow humans ignorance for they are blind)
>t. soullet
Personally I think it's okay for the millions like you to consume AIslop instead of real art. The latter has always been exclusive domain of the aristocrats of the soul. You wouldn't get it.
AI works are soulless because AI is a purely statistical function extrapolating data from existing datapoints. Sure, it is a complex statistical funnction and in many mathematical dimensions, but at the end of the day it is still deterministic, it is a machine that creates statistical facsimiles
Here's Hans Zimmer AI:
https://twitter.com/space_tintin/status/1778182882881904888
Weebs have been worse for culture than AI
When recorded music was invented, musicians protested and said it was soulless.
A) they were correct music should be shared in person
B) Recorded music and AI aren't in any way analogous
The lengths you would go to be a luddite is so impressive
they were right. every time something like that happens you get less room for expression. putting some words into a diffusion model is much less expressive than drawing it yourself and deciding every little detail. there's only so much you can choose before the rest is filled in with statistically likely elements by the ML model. less and less control. it's like building a Lego set by the instruction booklet and calling it art.
The ultimate test for AI fiction-writing: an AI crafted short story compelling enough to secure acceptance from a prestigious publication like The New Yorker or some other esteemed magazine or journal, with the submission giving no indication of its AI origins.
>a prestigious publication like The New Yorker or some other esteemed magazine or journal
That is the worst possible test
what would be a good test, then.
The big journals and literary/arts magazines don't just say "this is great, print it," they are going to research the author and the work to make sure they actually wrote it and not because AI, publishing something which turns out to be largely or even partly plagiarized will seriously hurt their reputation and sales. You would have to fake more than just the writing to get them to publish it, possible but a lot more work than just waiting for AI to get good enough to fool them. AI only has a chance in the small journals which operate on essentially a handshake.
But AI is decades away from writing anything cohesive enough to get into all but genre rags, still completely lacks the understanding of nuance, subtext, and context required for lit fiction.