/lit/ - Literature

We have no proof that Shakespeare wasnt automated in the first place

In fact we have no proof anyone who lived before me actually lived, the universe begins and ends with me

>>15245854
Shut up, man. If this is true, your post exists specifically to piss me off.

>>15245841
>Deep-speare’s creation is nonsensical when you read it closely, but it certainly “scans well,” as an English teacher would say—its rhythm, rhyme scheme, and the basic grammar of its individual lines all seem fine at first glance. As our research team discovered when we showed our AI’s poetry to the world, that’s enough to fool quite a lot of people
so it's on the level of lit refugees who don't read.
same as that 'brilliant' ai composer that copied schindler's list.

AI:1
Niggers:0

>>15245841
Simple. We destroy all technology. You know he is right. It's the final pill many are too afraid to take.

>>15245841
And do you say this nonsense bullshit will beat Shakespeare? poetry is the language of the soul, your soulless machines won't accomplish anything.

Bump

>>15245912
What is the AI even trying to say here?
I'm getting some vague images, but the lines don't even seem to follow each other well

It will be very difficult for a computer to produce something like a Shakespearen tragedy because the interactions between human beings depend on an immense range of perceptions, feelings, emotions and subtleties that are not logical. If you teach them to the computer it could reproduce, but how would you teach it? We know this ourselves (how it feels to be hungry, to hate, to love, to fear, to read emotions on the face of other people, etc) because of the action of countless genes, in addition to years and years of social interaction.

In the same way, how to teach the "mind" of a computer to generate metaphors that depend on the human perception of similarities between things that have no logical similarity? You can generate a large database, but how do you make the machine perceive patterns by itself? For example, a person with a social phobia is afraid that anything wrong he say in conversations and dating can have an extremely negative reaction. Likewise, when walking through a minefield if you miss a step, your death is certain. A human being can see a logic between these two things and say: "Socializing for me is like walking through a minefield: a wrong word and I am blown up on the moon". But how can you teach a computer to "see" this similarity?

someone should build a free verse version of this with the best modern free verse poets, then attach an exotic minority name to it, then enter it into poetry comps

>>15246001
It's not "trying" to say anything. That's the point. It's just executing on syntactic rules that imitate Shakespeare's style (poorly) without any understanding of semantics.

>>15245912
>>15246033
>>15246007

intentional fallacy

>>15246070
intentional faggotry

>>15246070

Look, I'm this guy:

>>15246007

And I really don't know if a machine might one day write plays like the ones of Shakespeare. I just think it would be very hard for it to do so.

>>15245841
We have to destroy all technology. I'm tossing this computer away as i write this

>>15246106

>>15245841
I think the automation is fine because AI still needs to be trained and educated and I don't see why it couldn't be used as assistance

>>15245841
it's just a fucking computer doing pee pee poo poo
that's all it is and it's not freeing shit

>>15245912
Shitty ass font, a fatass like me cant Read that shit

Bump

>>15245841
Just don’t read it then? Most people who make this shit don’t even take it seriously themselves. It’s a game for them, a way to get university funding ir whatever. No one will read it or care. Half the fun in books, music or film is engaging with the people who do it. We’re social animals and the reason stff like this puts you off is because of how alienating and disassociating it is. But guess what, most people feel the same. Even caring about technical shit like rhyme or meter is alienating enough to normies, that’s why they can bop to slam poetry and mumble rap. They only care if other people like it and whether they can talk about it with others. That’s why music reviewing is as big a thing as the music itself. That’s why critics exist, that’s why degrees on celtic poetry exists. That’s also why you’re in a literature board instead of actually reading. Even if we outsource creative output to computers, the real source of enjoyment will be tweaking the algorithms and the subsequent critical analysis of the work, all of which will be done by people. Even if we could automate everything, we wouldn’t.

>>15245912
Preach it

>>15245841
>what’s left?
Masturbation machines, literally

Never stop to proclaim, 'til your last breath, that Ted was right.

>>15245841
I genuinely believe we will reach a point where there would be no point to human literature. All works will be AI made. And further, far more widespread and varied than human literature could ever be. I think it will come a time where there will be apps where you can press a few buttons and insert some settings and an AI will create the absolute most perfect novel/short story/poem for you in that moment according to what you want. I don’t know if this is good or not, really.

>>15246402
are you retarded?

>>15246423
based

>>15246425
i hope it's not in our lifetimes

Bump

In this thread: people that think a man made machine that can effectively MIMIC linguistic patterns is the same as an actual person originating a work of art

>>15245841
It has no meaning but it scans well, it says it right there in the article. Learn how to read, friend.

>>15246544
Based

Fuck AI alarmists, we won't be seeing AGI for a long, long time.

t. machine learning

>>15245854
Based Berkeley

But this type of shit is good. Theres a great machine learning algorithm where you can blotch on the outline of color for a black and white image, and the machine very nicely melds it into a very nice coloring of the black and white, so manga artists can create full color works instead of black and white stuff.

>>15246558
>t. machine learning
A literal program telling us not to worry about programs, ok bro

>>15246442
>Are you retarded?
This is why there’s no point in posting in this site. All you want you is validation from other posters; not actually engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue. I waste my time giving you an effort post and you just hurl bullshit because it disagrees with your already accepted premise. Maybe it’s best that AI take over if this is going to be the quality of the average person.

>>15246558
Ironically, you're evidencing exactly why AI would never reach the point of making that post

>>15246106
based

>>15246598
Ok, here's a lengthy response.

Most people barely care about the authors of the books they read. If we get to the point where AI writing is effectively indistinguishable from human writing I'd imagine they’ll give the AI a pen name, hire a “ghost human” to be the “author” and do book signings and very few people will know. Once the AI is popular they can reveal that it was a computer that wrote the book and that will be that. Given the relative quality of a lot of mass media I doubt many people will notice or care.

>>15245841
>scares me
Why? The more the merrier.

>>15246646
Isn't it disheartening that we would cuck ourselves out of our artistic destinies as human beings?

>>15246653
What do you mean?

>>15245841
The AI just mimicked his metre but not his content. AIs can only imitate, they can't create.

>>15245841
Learn to code

>>15246676
Yes, and when/if they do become creators, they are more likely merged with us in a deeper level, and we'll be on our way to become the machine elves.

bump

>>15246078
Holy mother of based

>*builds EMP*
Heh, nothin personnel kid

>>15246690
It's theorizet that that's impossible. AIs being exactly just like humans is not sci-fi but fantasy

>>15245841
Dylan Thomas BTFO

>>15246663
That there is deep fulfillment in artistic creation, of which we would rob ourselves by creating machines that are better artists than we could ever be.

>>15245841
Part of what's valued in art is that a person created it. In a strange way, appreciating art is a social activity, even if you do it alone. You get a sense of who the artist is or was, and you respond emotionally in part because you are imagining Van Gogh undergoing the intense self-examination that goes into a self-portrait, and you relate to the mystical feeling embodied in Inness's late landscapes.
It's not just that this AI's poems are nonsense; it's that they are not born of life.

if you really think AI will magically whip out genius literature you really don't know what literature is

AI will never know human semantics, just an imitation. only if you see literature as a series of nice metaphors and similes will AI writing ever be relevant

>>15245841
I'm not afraid of the AI so much as I'm afraid of retards like you who can't tell the difference.

>>15245841
Extinction. Replacement. As evolution is.

THAT AI IS NOT A GENIUS POET OR A REAL REPLACEMENT OF ANY WRITER

THE SHIT IT WROTE WAS GARBAGE, SLOP

SOME PROGRAMMERS JUST FED THE PROGRAM GRAMMAR RULES, PROBABLY LIMITED THE TYPES OF WORDS IT COULD USE TO OLD ENGLISH, AND PROGRAMMED SOME OF SHAKESPEARE'S RHYME SCHEMES INTO THE PROGRAM

THAT ISN'T WORTH DICK, I CAN SIT DOWN AND COPY A STANZA AND BREAK IT ALL APART AND MAKE MY OWN SHITTY VERSION TOO

THE HUMAN IMAGINATION IS INFINITELY BETTER YOU SCUMFUCK

>>15248774
based

>>15245841
>moving toward UBI in the process and freeing people to pursue their passions like academics or the arts

Oh boy, where have I heard this before.

You call that rubish good
Meaning aside,it's mediocre as hell and comes nowhere near shakespeare's skill

>Yet in a circle pallid as it flow,
>by this bright sun, that with his light display
>roll'd from the sands, and half the buds of snow,
>and calmly on him shall infold away.
This is fucking gibberish. If anyone honestly thinks this is Shakespeare that only means they don't understand Elizabethan English. It's a string of random words. What's the "pallid circle?" Do they mean a face or a moon? Well neither one "flows" by the sun, unless you're a vampire and your face is melting. And since when does sunlight "roll from the sands?"

I'm so sick of hearing about AI that can totally do this and that, and then you mess with it and it can't do shit.

I'm partial to Searle's Chinese Room argument when it comes to the fear about the arts being automated away. While I don't know if it is possible for machines to have inner states equivalent to the rich and colorful tapestry of human imagination and mental life, I know for certain that present implementations are lacking in it. More to the point so much art is dependent on the living, breathing, fleshy, embodied aspects of mortality, things that an AI would never get.

Even as these models develop in sophistication and increasingly approximate humanlike verisimilitude, they will still display a stilted, artificial, airless quality because they will lack (insert italics) feeling.

>>15248774
>shakespeare
>old english
hwá

>>15248859
That's because the program only manipulates syntactic transformations and has no conceptual model of the words.

>>15248929
Yeah. It can't "write like Shakespeare." And there's another AI that claims it can write "realistic news articles," but it can't. And there's another AI that can supposedly continue stories but it can't do that either. AI can only produce nonsense.

I'm sure the guys who developed this AI are proud because their AI gibberish almost looks like human gibberish, and that's something slightly better than "thy thy thy thy thy thine thy thy thy thy." But honestly, is this worthy of cracking the champagne and sharing with the world?

new passions that you have not thought of yet

>>15245841
Most of this AI and other emergent intelligence that produces any kind of plot or art is crap. And the same logic applies to whatever other writing it produces in terms of content. The fraud is obvious. Read any AI generated specs that lasts more than a paragraph. It's shit.
The main place where this could go might be video games or visual novels, or whatever thing branching from those we might see in the future. And this is where all the big experiments are for that, these days.
But it wouldn't be particularly deep, and it would primarily be the result of shifting a set of variables. Or it's random and fairly simple altogether. I've seen people get exited over the fact an AI can make a premise of a novel, but just look at video games. Video games which play with this never approach the veracity of mediocre novel, and they mostly rely on a lot of prefabricated ideas. The story is primarily a creation of the human participant.

I think the reason for this is that whatever programming a computer has, it is intrinsically unable to simultaneously sense or process the world or reality. It can't through any spontaneity produce reflection or introspection, which is present in art, even the most banal kind of art.
All these speculative programs can do is shift variables out of prefabricated structures. These so-called "AIs" are still nothing but machines for now, like those "plot wheels" from decades back. Glorified stethoscopes.

>>15245841
As long as the frame problem remains unsolved, this shit will never be good.

>>15246646
>the more, the merrier
If something exists in great quantities, is it good? What distinguishes the good authors are the slews of bad and mediocre authors. If we have unlimited access to the best of works, the ante will have to be upped or we'll have to re-evaluate beauty until not even an AI can imitate it

>>15245854
Wait a minute, then what about me? I thought it was me who this is all about.

>>15245841
What if consciousness isn't anything special and just another mildly complex process? Not a threshold or a mark, but simply one step on a scale? A scale that includes oxidization, bread molding, DNA splicing and the olfactory system?

>>15245912

>>15246007
Deep Blue

Thus I refute thee.