/lit/ - Literature

>>11766009
A painting holds more value than a photo. The same dichotomy will occur between human and AI written literature. One will forever be trying to match the human enhancements and characteristics in the other, just as photography has tried to match the compositional skills of the classical artist (notice how no one gives a shit about professional photography because everyone has become a photographer with the enhancement of technology. The same thing will happen to AI writing. Everyone will have access to it, so no one will value it above a "wow! This is cool!" Mindset. The same thing will happen when music is made by extremely advanced neural networks and AI.) All dumbed-down and/or shallow art forms with little possible manipulation of detail possible all inevitably fall into this category of accessibility that holds it back from being taken seriously as an artform. For example, a filmography is way harder to amass than a collection (an album?) of photography because film is more inaccessible to learn because of the harder work involved. This added complexity increases possible artistic integrity. Where is the complexity in giving an automated AI a theme to work with and getting a short story 30 seconds later? There is no effort other than the effort that the consumer didn't see (the work that was put into the AI). Just because the AI is complex doesn't mean it has more artistic integrity, it means that it will be looked at as a commodity, and appreciated only for its mark on progress in technology. It isn't artistically important, it's a product, and is only technique, technique that will ultimately be ignored aswell by the public. Lower than modern classical music.

There are three variables now: result, technique, and complexity. When focus is put on technique instead of result, it creates the "that's pretty cool" factor that is instantly forgettable and almost pretentious. When focus is put on complexity and not result, works gain in artistic integrity because of their difficulty to create by the majority, making the creation inaccessible and focus developing only to the inspired. When focus is put on result then art is at its most human because of the image of reality distorted by personality that captures humanity. Lastly, the Creator can only sway the audience's opinion of which category their art falls into, for context is what will ultimately hold AI art back from being respected outside of mild interest.

>>11756209

I want to be famous, but the credible kind of famous
I want to be famous for achieving something amazing and being talked about in universities and written down in books, not just famous for having my face shoved into a camera. I don't even need money, just the cementing of history

>OP is a woman
>writes like shit
red flag is officially up for this thread

>>11010234
Kid, just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it bad
The OP is just a short and sweet little piece about taking life as it is in stride

Wait why?
Cosmic horror has nothing to do with Lovecrafts xenophobia. Yes it influenced some of his works because of the tiers of races but the same effect can come from economic classes

>not forcing homer on your students