This is critical to consider in this age of slop. It’s important first to consider the purpose of writing anything at all. Slop almost always fails this test.
This is critical to consider in this age of slop. It’s important first to consider the purpose of writing anything at all. Slop almost always fails this test.
People that don't understand this is best to explain to with AI music.
AI music appears to be reasonable music, but it carries no human emotion, it has no intent to exist and stand up on its own.
That's key to explain when it comes to writing or anything. AI assisted anything, sure, maybe, but AI for creative purposes is bland and ultimately poisons the well.
No one really wants to go see an AI movie at the cinema, except maybe to say that I tried an AI movie as a novelty item, like scented movie screening.
People who only see art as its surface content without all that other subtext are exposing themselves.
Well said. There is a social context, there is a process and a struggle that can be more important than the result. It is sad to reduce art to the final product, or to approach it with an industrial mindset: maximizing commercial value while minimizing effort.
I can't write well. Let someone say it who can: (Ursula Le Guin, 5min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2v7RDyo7os&t=337
Guess what, most music I listen to didn't have more thought put behind it than "this sounds good" either.
On the other hand, it can't be denied that AI political music has given the population a bigger voice.
I can't agree. Or, part of me wants to, but I know that the Powers That Be will push AI generated propaganda music pretend to be grassroots / "someone just like you", and / but pay to have it promoted.
Avoid streaming services if you want to listen to political music. Go for live music and connect with humans, or at the very least just be among them and listen to them live. They may still be government plants but the chances are much lower.
And yet many people listen to AI music, some examples on HN even [0], one of the main reasons being it can create songs tuned to very specific niches that cannot normally be found much. I also have found very entertaining videos and content made with AI, such as Pokemon "nature documentaries" [1] and I imagine people in the future will want to see an AI movie if it appeals to them, because it's content that would otherwise be too time consuming or unprofitable to create without AI.
That is to say, it is unwise to dismiss what the mass populace will do simply because it doesn't meet one's internal threshold of quality; many don't give a shit about quality.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43869353
[1] https://youtube.com/@natgeopocket
I can hardly imagine anything more unappealing that watching AI slop "nature documentaries". It's truly inconceivable to me to look at things from the prism you are looking.
That's my point, you find it unappealing yet that genre has millions upon millions of views, so clearly some people do find it enjoyable, if only to see on a screen in high detail the types of pocket monsters they imagined in their minds as a kid, and maybe you don't have such a fascination so I can see why you can't conceive of the notion that others do.
My point is that ultimately, dismissing others' experience doesn't make it go away, and sticking one's head in the sand about how "no one" would like AI generated content is a fool's errand when I can already see that maybe 5 or 10 years in a future there will be a blockbuster hit that's fully made with AI, and in the decades after that, no one will bat an eye at AI usage, much as they don't about CGI these days, even though directors from the golden age of cinema would find our modern movies as inconceivable as you do today with AI.