I literally wouldn't worry about Ai. A simulation of something is not the real thing. The map is not the territory. I was casting around for something to take with me on holiday and with every novel that sprang to mind my first impulse was to find out more about the author. In the age of Ai 'Ai-free' zones and experiences will be one even more important - for feeling connected to another sentient being and as an act of species solidarity. Everyone's life experiences are unique, as are our (largely unlearnt) personalities,as is everyone's sense of humour/the ridiculous/the tragic etc. When we 'get' a joke we connect with someone and often have a response that's at the same time physical, emotional, existential and cognitive. I cannot see that happen with Ai - at least once you know the author is an Ai.
Novels require a reader's attention, otherwise they will not function. Well, maybe as ornaments in studies or living rooms. With songs it's different. Really listening to them is just one of the options, they may also be experienced without any real investment on the receiving end. I suppose this will mean that there will be a considerable 'market' of song consumers who do not really care what's playing. AI can cater for them. But there won't be many novel readers who do not care. Reading a novel is an investment, and that makes a reader picky. If there's an infinite number of titles to choose from, you may as well disregard all of them and stick to the works of authors who even took greater pains writing their books that you will do reading them.
I think there will be a big market for AI novels because they will able to replicate a formula. So Beast Quest, Mills and Boon, and other franchises would be silly not to go for AI. Human writers will be pushed to deeper, perhaps more metaphorical, personal, emotional styles of writing. Memoir and autofiction will be the literary leaders.
No you’re not a sentimentalist or, if you are one, then I’m one too. I have no interest in anything AI created and it also scares me. If Casey exists, and I hope he doesn’t, he sounds very soulless. There is a flatness or a hyper reality about AI imagery. I don’t like films with lots of CGI and effects. I don’t like singing with auto tune. I don’t read mass market genre novels. I’m interested in individuals’ artistic take on the world. When you have a sense of connection in art, which often means a sense that someone else has felt like you it’s a wonderful human thing. Art is not about volume, it’s about particularity.
There's always a flatness to AI, whether it's a "photo", a "painting", or writing (can't comment on the music as I'm too deaf now to hear it properly).
My partner showed me the AI image app on his phone, where he'd got it to change a photo he'd taken of some boats to look like a painting in the style of a particular artist. Aside from the typical AI fluffs (what is that mast attached to?), it just seemed flat. Soulless.
It bothered me and eventually I realised that the issue is that AI doesn't know what it *feels* like to see boats. It doesn't know what it's like to smell the seasalt, feel the sea breeze, hear the waves, wonder if those darkening clouds overhead will bring rain. It doesn't know the sense of adventure you see on looking at boats, of the empathy you might feel towards people who spend their lives on the changeable, beautiful, dangerous seas, of looking at the curve of the hulls and appreciating the skill and physical effort of shipwrights.
An artist can channel that into a painting of boats, but to AI it's a collage of painted shapes with streaks to resemble brushstrokes. It doesn't - and I don't think it ever could - show us what it *feels* like to see boats because it will never be able to.
We were having a conflab in a phd seminar about this earlier in the year: AI is a tool and will need regs to protect human IP and AI gen content will be consumed by whomever wants to BUT the human made literary works will rise to something like the status of artisanal arts (for genre works) and fine art (for highbrow stuff). The latter categories will become more expensive and take the trajectory of theatre and the plastic arts while the AI gen matter will be gorged on for next to nothing, probably ad supported or a sub model. Like nature, authors will find a way. Same for music—human made v machine made. A lot of output will fall somewhere in between (AI assisted product). It’ll work itself out when it comes to generative AI. Except for graphic designers—their days are numbered!
People saying AI isn’t a threat don’t seem to understand the progress it has made over the last few years. Is it a threat right this minute? No. But will it be in ten years? Absolutely. And for those saying, oh, once I know it’s written by AI I won’t be interested - that’s the point, you won’t know that.
AI in all its forms is a huge threat to humanity. It will make democracy even more unworkable than it currently is. We won’t know what videos are real, we won’t know who said what, when.
I really do fear for the future of humanity. AI would be fantastic if humans were always good - but with our species often being the opposite, it’s going to be a disaster.
A 10000th Lee Child novel would still require time.
Anything that requires more than a “hit” is not going to be “consumed” as a “product” or “content” with the same “success” as TikTok.
Those who take the time to read a curated novel which is just like another novel and another novel, will eventually get bored, no different than all the current content available via streaming. Sadly, it’s not the algorithms deciding which pitch gets accepted. When enough money is lost by no one watching because the companies (be it publishing or Netflix) want to replicate whatever created revenue, ignoring “that’s different” is what yields interest and perhaps profit.
Additionally, Ai can only create based on what already exists. If nothing exists, nothing can be done. I know many artists who are using NightShade to pollute Ai. Meaning, they are mislabeling and purposefully mangling that which makes no sense and releasing it into databases.
On my Radio Show 'Artists on Air', a recent guest (Nigel Grist), when asked how he spent his spare time, shared a long list of activities. Then added: never watches TV. No TV in the house. The licensing people have even given up badgering him for the fee. That's rare, not to own a TV, but then I realise my (hubby and I) rarely watch live TV. We pay the licence fee but there's either nothing on we want to watch, or it's not on when it suits our schedule. So we use iPlayer and the like. We're selective.
In the same way, I'm selective about what I read. No intention of reading anything produced by AI. There so much other RI (real intelligence) material stacked up on my bedside table. Why bother with AI? 'Clever' as it may be, I'm not drawn to it at all. And gave up on Lee Child as soon as I realised he was no longer the RA (real author). PS I wrote a blurb for my radio show. For a laugh, I ran it through one of those AI checkers - see if it could improve on what I'd written. Result: said my text was 97% AI produced. HaHa. AI stands for Anne's Intelligence!
I literally wouldn't worry about Ai. A simulation of something is not the real thing. The map is not the territory. I was casting around for something to take with me on holiday and with every novel that sprang to mind my first impulse was to find out more about the author. In the age of Ai 'Ai-free' zones and experiences will be one even more important - for feeling connected to another sentient being and as an act of species solidarity. Everyone's life experiences are unique, as are our (largely unlearnt) personalities,as is everyone's sense of humour/the ridiculous/the tragic etc. When we 'get' a joke we connect with someone and often have a response that's at the same time physical, emotional, existential and cognitive. I cannot see that happen with Ai - at least once you know the author is an Ai.
Novels require a reader's attention, otherwise they will not function. Well, maybe as ornaments in studies or living rooms. With songs it's different. Really listening to them is just one of the options, they may also be experienced without any real investment on the receiving end. I suppose this will mean that there will be a considerable 'market' of song consumers who do not really care what's playing. AI can cater for them. But there won't be many novel readers who do not care. Reading a novel is an investment, and that makes a reader picky. If there's an infinite number of titles to choose from, you may as well disregard all of them and stick to the works of authors who even took greater pains writing their books that you will do reading them.
A thought provoking and funny column on AI and the future of the novel was written by Dutch writer Rob van Essen. You'll find it here (in Dutch, but online translation sites will do a quite passable job rendering it in English): https://rvessen.wordpress.com/2023/05/17/de-toekomst-van-de-roman-maar-dan-anders/
I think there will be a big market for AI novels because they will able to replicate a formula. So Beast Quest, Mills and Boon, and other franchises would be silly not to go for AI. Human writers will be pushed to deeper, perhaps more metaphorical, personal, emotional styles of writing. Memoir and autofiction will be the literary leaders.
No you’re not a sentimentalist or, if you are one, then I’m one too. I have no interest in anything AI created and it also scares me. If Casey exists, and I hope he doesn’t, he sounds very soulless. There is a flatness or a hyper reality about AI imagery. I don’t like films with lots of CGI and effects. I don’t like singing with auto tune. I don’t read mass market genre novels. I’m interested in individuals’ artistic take on the world. When you have a sense of connection in art, which often means a sense that someone else has felt like you it’s a wonderful human thing. Art is not about volume, it’s about particularity.
There's always a flatness to AI, whether it's a "photo", a "painting", or writing (can't comment on the music as I'm too deaf now to hear it properly).
My partner showed me the AI image app on his phone, where he'd got it to change a photo he'd taken of some boats to look like a painting in the style of a particular artist. Aside from the typical AI fluffs (what is that mast attached to?), it just seemed flat. Soulless.
It bothered me and eventually I realised that the issue is that AI doesn't know what it *feels* like to see boats. It doesn't know what it's like to smell the seasalt, feel the sea breeze, hear the waves, wonder if those darkening clouds overhead will bring rain. It doesn't know the sense of adventure you see on looking at boats, of the empathy you might feel towards people who spend their lives on the changeable, beautiful, dangerous seas, of looking at the curve of the hulls and appreciating the skill and physical effort of shipwrights.
An artist can channel that into a painting of boats, but to AI it's a collage of painted shapes with streaks to resemble brushstrokes. It doesn't - and I don't think it ever could - show us what it *feels* like to see boats because it will never be able to.
Luke had a Beast Quest phase too. I asked him if they were all the same and he replied, “oh no, sometimes the Beasts hide.”
We were having a conflab in a phd seminar about this earlier in the year: AI is a tool and will need regs to protect human IP and AI gen content will be consumed by whomever wants to BUT the human made literary works will rise to something like the status of artisanal arts (for genre works) and fine art (for highbrow stuff). The latter categories will become more expensive and take the trajectory of theatre and the plastic arts while the AI gen matter will be gorged on for next to nothing, probably ad supported or a sub model. Like nature, authors will find a way. Same for music—human made v machine made. A lot of output will fall somewhere in between (AI assisted product). It’ll work itself out when it comes to generative AI. Except for graphic designers—their days are numbered!
People saying AI isn’t a threat don’t seem to understand the progress it has made over the last few years. Is it a threat right this minute? No. But will it be in ten years? Absolutely. And for those saying, oh, once I know it’s written by AI I won’t be interested - that’s the point, you won’t know that.
AI in all its forms is a huge threat to humanity. It will make democracy even more unworkable than it currently is. We won’t know what videos are real, we won’t know who said what, when.
I really do fear for the future of humanity. AI would be fantastic if humans were always good - but with our species often being the opposite, it’s going to be a disaster.
TikTok is to be consumed and quickly.
A 10000th Lee Child novel would still require time.
Anything that requires more than a “hit” is not going to be “consumed” as a “product” or “content” with the same “success” as TikTok.
Those who take the time to read a curated novel which is just like another novel and another novel, will eventually get bored, no different than all the current content available via streaming. Sadly, it’s not the algorithms deciding which pitch gets accepted. When enough money is lost by no one watching because the companies (be it publishing or Netflix) want to replicate whatever created revenue, ignoring “that’s different” is what yields interest and perhaps profit.
Additionally, Ai can only create based on what already exists. If nothing exists, nothing can be done. I know many artists who are using NightShade to pollute Ai. Meaning, they are mislabeling and purposefully mangling that which makes no sense and releasing it into databases.
On my Radio Show 'Artists on Air', a recent guest (Nigel Grist), when asked how he spent his spare time, shared a long list of activities. Then added: never watches TV. No TV in the house. The licensing people have even given up badgering him for the fee. That's rare, not to own a TV, but then I realise my (hubby and I) rarely watch live TV. We pay the licence fee but there's either nothing on we want to watch, or it's not on when it suits our schedule. So we use iPlayer and the like. We're selective.
In the same way, I'm selective about what I read. No intention of reading anything produced by AI. There so much other RI (real intelligence) material stacked up on my bedside table. Why bother with AI? 'Clever' as it may be, I'm not drawn to it at all. And gave up on Lee Child as soon as I realised he was no longer the RA (real author). PS I wrote a blurb for my radio show. For a laugh, I ran it through one of those AI checkers - see if it could improve on what I'd written. Result: said my text was 97% AI produced. HaHa. AI stands for Anne's Intelligence!