Good point about the difference between reading and watching. If 10 people watch a movie, they're all watching the same movie (with very minor differences, maybe). If 10 people read the same novel, they're reading 10 different novels, because of the necessity of bringing the imagination into play more forcefully. If you stop watching the movie, the movie goes on (unless you shut it off). If you stop reading a book, the book stops with you.
Beg extremely to differ because I am proud with "Barbie" not to have seen the same movie as the early wave of take-havers because I had mental furniture like "The Diamond Age" that was not available to them. (America Ferrera lost me with the first line of her big speech BECAUSE it was "You have to be thin" but I could analogize it to when Nell tells the book about having been abused and how after that moment everything could change for her)
Also Matt Wiener is on the record as saying that there is no master interpretation of "Mad Men"; anyone can take what they want from it and none of it is wrong. It will also help if you are familiar with some of the fancy film school techniques which Wiener knows which was the subject of a series at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
Excellent essay, one of the better ones I’ve read on AI and art.
One thing that concerns me near term about film and TV is the ability of AI (and studios’ incessant thirst for profitability) to allow individuals at the top (directors, showrunners) more control in the entire creative process and end product.
Even if you still cast human actors, if AI allows for exponentially more green screen, and you have half (or worse) below the line talent involved in production, film and TV become far less of a collaborative venture. It becomes less human. Some writer/directors would be successful with this, but many would not. Others’ input, hearing no and finding another way is a big part of creating great stories for the screen. Could say the same for books on a smaller scale (fewer variables and people involved).
Your thesis is so Fn spot on… I don’t worry about AI replacing art, I worry about it stripping away the craft and humanity in art.
An amazing piece; terrifically written, which is already an argument in and of itself, regarding this subject matter. Thanks!
Edit: I wanted to add that this is the first time that reading something on here made me want to buy the authors work, and I just preordered your novel.
Thanks for this eloquent defense of imagination. I think audiences will become savvy to AI's inability to conjure, and will detect and reject its blankness of expression. Not all audiences, perhaps not even the majority, but I hope enough to prevent complete overthrow.
The humanist vs anti-humanist distinction feels like a better fit for Middle Earth than Yoknapatawpha: I think Faulkner would struggle to cleave the world so neatly. It’s one thing to wax poetic about literary heritage, and another to internalize it.
Actually, for this particular question — why you see LLMs being at odds with all that seems alive — I would reference Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, which addresses the dichotomy between engineering and art fairly thoughtfully
The vision of antihumanists, transhumanists and AI augmentation crowds collides unexpectedly, and disturbingly, with reality to create soulless, narrative-free tech-reliant zombies who can’t think for themselves yet are super efficient at the task of consumption.
This is good. Thanks for taking the time and effort. Saves me from wanting to sidle up to an anti humanist or three for research purposes in doing something similar. I’d rather stick my old boomer head in the sand and pretend AI doesn’t exist. Speaking of real life, I’ll probably meet you in the flesh Tuesday night at KGB, unless it snows a lot. I’m driving.
'The communing of mind, body, and currents, the flow of image to fingertips, the dream of these creatures in your skull becoming transmuted into a language'. Wonderfully put.
A great sermon. The quote given to the NYT that a significant portion of the romance audience does not care if the story is human or AI (even if AI is not very good at some very important things like emotionally convincing sex scenes) is parallel to this point but I worry about the fiction audience on Twitter who already know the (possibly autofictional) story they want to read
and will bully the poor authors until they get it or who speak reverently about "stories" but are indifferent to which medium they are in. Clearly the people who believe that AI can write fiction are thinking that this audience will accept it.
I first read that quote by Lee and thought that he had taken the side of the ancients in the great Ancients vs. Moderns battle and was refusing to read anything published after Fielding and Smollett.
Anti-humanists are those who oppose progress for some imaginary chimera. The real humanists are those who toil every day to make the lives of each man better and better.
Good point about the difference between reading and watching. If 10 people watch a movie, they're all watching the same movie (with very minor differences, maybe). If 10 people read the same novel, they're reading 10 different novels, because of the necessity of bringing the imagination into play more forcefully. If you stop watching the movie, the movie goes on (unless you shut it off). If you stop reading a book, the book stops with you.
Beg extremely to differ because I am proud with "Barbie" not to have seen the same movie as the early wave of take-havers because I had mental furniture like "The Diamond Age" that was not available to them. (America Ferrera lost me with the first line of her big speech BECAUSE it was "You have to be thin" but I could analogize it to when Nell tells the book about having been abused and how after that moment everything could change for her)
Also Matt Wiener is on the record as saying that there is no master interpretation of "Mad Men"; anyone can take what they want from it and none of it is wrong. It will also help if you are familiar with some of the fancy film school techniques which Wiener knows which was the subject of a series at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
Excellent essay, one of the better ones I’ve read on AI and art.
One thing that concerns me near term about film and TV is the ability of AI (and studios’ incessant thirst for profitability) to allow individuals at the top (directors, showrunners) more control in the entire creative process and end product.
Even if you still cast human actors, if AI allows for exponentially more green screen, and you have half (or worse) below the line talent involved in production, film and TV become far less of a collaborative venture. It becomes less human. Some writer/directors would be successful with this, but many would not. Others’ input, hearing no and finding another way is a big part of creating great stories for the screen. Could say the same for books on a smaller scale (fewer variables and people involved).
Your thesis is so Fn spot on… I don’t worry about AI replacing art, I worry about it stripping away the craft and humanity in art.
An amazing piece; terrifically written, which is already an argument in and of itself, regarding this subject matter. Thanks!
Edit: I wanted to add that this is the first time that reading something on here made me want to buy the authors work, and I just preordered your novel.
Thanks for this eloquent defense of imagination. I think audiences will become savvy to AI's inability to conjure, and will detect and reject its blankness of expression. Not all audiences, perhaps not even the majority, but I hope enough to prevent complete overthrow.
The humanist vs anti-humanist distinction feels like a better fit for Middle Earth than Yoknapatawpha: I think Faulkner would struggle to cleave the world so neatly. It’s one thing to wax poetic about literary heritage, and another to internalize it.
Actually, for this particular question — why you see LLMs being at odds with all that seems alive — I would reference Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, which addresses the dichotomy between engineering and art fairly thoughtfully
Word of the year contender: Slopborg
The vision of antihumanists, transhumanists and AI augmentation crowds collides unexpectedly, and disturbingly, with reality to create soulless, narrative-free tech-reliant zombies who can’t think for themselves yet are super efficient at the task of consumption.
This is good. Thanks for taking the time and effort. Saves me from wanting to sidle up to an anti humanist or three for research purposes in doing something similar. I’d rather stick my old boomer head in the sand and pretend AI doesn’t exist. Speaking of real life, I’ll probably meet you in the flesh Tuesday night at KGB, unless it snows a lot. I’m driving.
‘Eat The Document’ is one of the finest novels, maybe ever.
'The communing of mind, body, and currents, the flow of image to fingertips, the dream of these creatures in your skull becoming transmuted into a language'. Wonderfully put.
Wonderfully done, Ross. Bravo.
A million times Amen.
A great sermon. The quote given to the NYT that a significant portion of the romance audience does not care if the story is human or AI (even if AI is not very good at some very important things like emotionally convincing sex scenes) is parallel to this point but I worry about the fiction audience on Twitter who already know the (possibly autofictional) story they want to read
and will bully the poor authors until they get it or who speak reverently about "stories" but are indifferent to which medium they are in. Clearly the people who believe that AI can write fiction are thinking that this audience will accept it.
(That audience can write the story they want with AI and will not have to bully the poor authors anymore for example)
I first read that quote by Lee and thought that he had taken the side of the ancients in the great Ancients vs. Moderns battle and was refusing to read anything published after Fielding and Smollett.
Anti-humanists are those who oppose progress for some imaginary chimera. The real humanists are those who toil every day to make the lives of each man better and better.
from 1950 to 1960 tv ownership in America went from 15 to 85%
what separates humans from AI is not the capacity for imagination but the capacity for boredom. for purposelessness.