What AI risks

It is strange because you seem to be disagreeing strongly with whatever you think our attitude is on AI, and yet I can't see what your actual argument is. It seems to be nothing but knee-jerk reactions to individual things we say. This was the problem we ran into before too as I recall. It never became clear what you were actually driving toward. Your actual point seems to be very nebulous and never clarified.

Could you do us all a favor and try to put your main argument in clear terms? What is it you think should be done about AI? And what does it have to do with us?

 

I reserve the right to have more than one view on something as nebulous as "AI" which covers a vast array of different technologies.

But on THIS topic, I feel I have been very clear.

If the concern is "AI is making humans less creative" I think the way to combat that is to expose and encourage the next generation to explore the wonders of human art.

 

Well in that case we're in agreement. Some of what you said earlier seems off kilter with that, but I can see this is going nowhere, so I'm done. I don't like these circular discussions.

 

Here's your first post on this thread (from today anyway, not sure if you posted here before). You seem to be making up a lot of stuff and attributing it to 'us' (THIS board) and then drawing some mysterious inferences from it. I'm not sure what fear you're talking about. I think you're referring to the weaknesses we've pointed out many times in today's AI, and for some reason you feel compelled to characterise it as fear. That feels like a manipulative tactic. I also dislike engaging with people who tend to use ALL CAPITALS as if shouting. I won't be engaging with you anymore. Though I must admit I'll miss what we shared.

 

This seems a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of AI, rather than a considered response to the OP. Did you even read it? It was not fear of AI that was expressed, but sadness, the sadness one feels with loss. We’re outsourcing what should be a fully human endeavour to inhuman machines. Every “writer” who uses generative AI deprives themselves of the full experience of expressing their creativity, all the sweat and the tears that goes into every word chosen.

I have never thought of it as a sin. Wrong word. This implies the writer commits a sin if he/she uses AI. IMO, a better analogy would be to consider generative AI as a thief, robbing the “writer” of his/her full humanity.

I think you have failed to understand the viewpoint of some members of this board.

 

Inadvertently. Though if catching crawfish in the creek was excessively stimulating to the point you seek nothing new or discomforting... at least you'd end up with a lot of crawfish.

 

At the liquor store this morning, I picked up eight tins—two hard ciders, two white claws, and four craft beers. I paid and made my way to the exit. At the door, I stopped, and waited for the door to open for me. It stayed closed. It was not an automatic door. Sometimes, you have to open the door for yourself.

 

It’s an interesting article, @Louanne Learning, thanks for posting. For me, this was the key point:

The development of agriculture, the light bulb, the automobile, the television, the pocket calculator… something dies with every change. This is the nature of change, perhaps.

I like ps102’s comment:

Regaining consciousness in what and how we consume, setting boundaries and maintaining self-discipline are important if we’re to enjoy the benefits and reduce the harms. i.e. To use rather than be used. I find it takes a lot of effort also!

 

My personal opinion.
The use of AI is killing art.
Human creativity cannot be replaced.
The Sistine Chapel is the work of man, just like Don Quixote de la Mancha by Miguel de Cervantes, I have Shakespeare, Dumas.
The history of humanity, our history, (of the whole world) has created stupendous artistic works.
AI will never be able to do this, and it won't even have to try.
Let's leave art to the artists.
Let's use AI where it's really needed, so that no human being dies from a risky and low-paid job.
Every time I see the use of AI being defended in the artistic field, I am happy with all my mistakes, because they are true, they are mine. I am a real person not a machine.

 

It not only kills off creativity in us as individuals and as a society, but it makes us dependent on the computers. We become more like the humans in Wall-E, incapable of taking care of ourselves, utterly dependent on the computers to do what we should be doing for ourselves, and that makes us stupid mindless sheep incapable of thinking for ourselves and afraid to try it. More and more I'm seeing all this new technology is used this way—the internet, cell phones, video games, etc. All are designed from the ground up to provide countless little dopamine hits and to make us want more. In other words to be addictive. And the majority of people will just happily consume it all, thus becoming near-mindless drones easily manipulated and happily enslaving themselves to the machines. This is how you make a society helpless and incapable of thinking for itself.

 

Let's hope it hits an iceberg.

 

I agree with everything.
I still find it so beautiful to write on paper, I sometimes find it more stimulating.

 

Unfortunately, there is just enough legitimate use for AI to assure it corrupts mankind in many ways.

For instance, I didn't understand logarithms until I got a calculator. The chance to explore and try things worked wonders. I will forever thank HP for learning the basics of logs.

Sadly, people will accept answers and solutions without knowledge of underlying mechanisms. AI is instant gratification on steroids.

 

Ok, I'm officially jaded. Indeed.com has a helpful article titled How to Become a Writer in 8 Steps. Presumably, recovery from being a writer is a 12 step process.

I think Indeed's how to become a writer article was written by AI.

Presented for analysis, this narrative under the heading, Novelist, National average salary: $43,434 per year.

Novelists are authors who write mainly novels, although they may also write other fiction and nonfiction pieces. Depending on what genre you choose for your book, you might spend time researching and studying a variety of subjects that interest you to come up with unique and well-thought-out ideas. Novelists also meet with various editors to help them review and improve their pieces before publishing.
​

Or, maybe that first line put me off. You see, I want to be a two-fisted Hemingway of an author, a writer who eats his typewriter ribbon raw, who drinks his metaphors straight up, never mixed.

I don't want to write mainly novels, I want to write manly novels.

Paraphrasing brilliance courtesy Monty Python, "I'm a novelist and that's OK..."

 

Absolutely! The career I chose (software developer) is the fourth most fulfilling pursuit I've experienced in life. My college education began as a music major (my true passion), changed to writing (a close second), then ended with computer science. I was driven away from music and writing after realizing how much more difficult it would be to make a living after college. Unfortunately, society simply doesn't apply the same value to creative pursuits as it does to STEM. This drives the pragmatic person away from creative outlets as a career.

 

Remember one thing:
Any text you enter into an Ai, (chatgpt-Gemini etc) remains in the system.
This means that if a user asks the program to write a text, it will respond with the information it has, i.e. your text, and your story.

 

I keep creativity and artistic ability separated in my mind. Art is creative expression of ideas, but creativity alone is not art. Similarly, STEM is definitely not a set of fields that excludes creativity. It just doesn't tend to contain the emotional expressiveness seen in artistic pursuits.

I don't think every person needs to express his emotion with music, painting, sculpting, literature, nor do I think it's consistently worthwhile. We already don't consume the vast majority of it because we select for the small amount that's worth our time. I've never looked around and thought: boy there is just so little art out there.

 

There is more to writing than art, though. Documentation, of course, personal defense, and my favorite, making the world a better place.

The pen is mightier than the sword in the long run. Short term, it might suck to be a controversial writer even if you're right.

 

Like most everyone, I, of course, am wary of AI writing technology. I mean, if you can write a book yourself, have the energy and time to write a book yourself, by all means, write it yourself.

However, this is where I think there is room for AI writing:

Many writers are teeming with good ideas for their next novel and there is not always enough time in a life to get to pursue every idea for a novel you get. Where AI writing I think can have an eventual impact is on the productivity aspect of writing, especially in fiction writing.

There are many ideas I have for novels that I know I may never get done for reasons such as: I can't pull off that style, I can't effectively recreate that character dynamic, I don't have the time to devote to it between all the other writing I'm doing, etc. The list could go on forever.

But I ask the writing community, does all that mean a good idea shouldn't be made into a book? My conclusion is, No. If you can get a good idea published by hook or crook, what does it matter how it got there? As long as you have proofread the output and checked it to make sure it is in compliance with your ultimate vision for it, I don't see how it matters how that reading experience came to be. Especially, when the alternative is one of multiple failed possibilities like, "I couldn't find the time to start it", "I didn't have the requisite knowledge and command of style to make it work', "It was too daunting a task to ever finish", etc. That doesn't mean, however, I'm suggesting a writer who uses AI should lie about or conceal that use.

 

This seems to be a justification for cheating? Especially cheating on yourself. The real writing experience happens when you do all the work yourself.