/lit/ - Literature

>>22051598
if this planet exploded god would get an erection

>>22051598
people think that the current poor state of art is due to not having good artists, but that is only half of it, having audiences who prefer and will give money to mediocre works is just as if not more damaging than shitty artists.
if people had better taste they would reject AI art, they would have let authors like coleen hoover remain obscure, and they would have asked for more than the lazy slop that is being given to them.
these techbros who think their machines can make them better artists than the great artists of the past do so precisely because they can't begin to judge what good art is.
the damage is not in AI making better art, it is in people buying into it and flooding the market with senseless bullshit

>>22051598
>see the commodification of writing and every other human art form
This has long been the case, the idea of integrity and holiness was already just marketing. Although more to foist ideas on people than doing that AND getting a payout at the end.
>accelerate rapidly into some cold, unfeeling synthetic Ouroboros
Also not a new problem, the vast majority of written material is trash by imbeciles, regurgitating memes and stories they already heard in a scramble to be remembered, or often just paid.
Quality work may become rarer, but it won't disappear.
Hell the average quality may even rise as people begin to dismiss mass-produced timefilling trash. Seeing it for what it is may actually become easier when you can attribute its worthlessness to the machine component.

>>22051598
I tried it to see what this technology is like and this “advanced AI technology” generated the most milquetoast, quintessential YA slop imaginable.

>>22051671
What was it like last year?
What will it be like next year?

>>22051626
This. AI will never replicate true genius. It can never pioneer actual, boundary pushing creative work that expresses something personal and with deep context about the author, historical circumstance, philosophy, culture, etc. AI can only replicate based on the parameters of what it’s been fed, and I doubt they could ever teach it to create anything new and have it be good.

I spent a lot of time experimenting with Midjourney and know it is incredible easy for me to tell what is AI generated and not. There are idiosyncrasies in AI art that you can spot. Of course it will get better but so will people's ability to distinguish it. I think the concern may be a bit overblown. Also the fact that most high art is innovative and because AI is built off of already existing ideas, it cannot really generate anything truly innovative.

>>22051755
Human experience is embodied. Your life, your memories, your experiences are entirely unique to you and you alone. AI won't do jack shit in comparison to human writers. Not until it's fully embodied. Even then, everyone will still be more likely to relate to a human

>>22051598
I'm strangely unmoved by this, because it has been over for decades.
There is more than enough beauty in the ruins of the past for a lifetime.

>>22051598
Where did this guy get the money to buy the souls of hundreds of novelists? Did they do it for free?

>>22051789
you think the majority of writers are producing Literature? faggots just write to shit out the next massive YA franchise with a movie deal.

>>22051755
I cannot tell you the amount of times I have seen someone write something exactly like this in the last six months.

>>22051789
Try it. You will see it is perfect for the braindead retard who writers fanfic and YA, since that is who they consulted. I don’t think any writer with self-respect (even if they write genreslop) would volunteer for this program let alone consider using it

>>22051598
>commodification of writing and every other human art
It has always been that way. The best classical art was commissioned by the church, and many great works of literature were released as serials in magazines.

>>22051821
So? I don't see your point.

>>22051853
If I asked you to make an original argument against ai in art would you be able to do it? Or would you be relying on what you have read about the topic?

I just want to be clear, that you do acknowledge your post above is not an original idea, thought, concept, or creation, because it has been said a million times by many different people over the last six month. Surely this idea did not begin with your mind alone.

>>22051860
I'm not the person you were talking to before, I just thought your point didn't make sense. Obviously he's not being self-referential in regards to his own post when he's talking about great literary works. I would have thought this was obvious.

>>22051598
Me too, without the irony

>>22051814
That wasn't responsive to my comments, but OK.

I love how machines are taking over the creative aspects of labor while leaving dull and mindless work to us. I love that in the future we'll be reduced to mere maintainers of machines that'll keep managing the wealth of our overlords. I can't fucking wait.

>>22051821
It's true though. AI as it currently stands is, by definition, a mediocrity generator. That is, it is a statistical model for predicting words, which makes it by definition midwit.

This isn't a bad thing. If anything it means that it has maximum appeal to the largest number of people, while being neither too clever nor too stupid to be off-putting. However, it won't be able to replace genius, because he is is by definition a statistical outlier.

>>22051941
Sarcasm is a very problematic emotion anon. Your social credit score has been reduced by five points. While there are a variety of reasons you might feel the way you do, studies have shown that mental health is improved when you try to focus on the positive aspects of life and be greatful for what you have. Just last year BasedMeat (TM) lifted ten million people out of climate hunger. There has never been a better time to be alive.

yet u keep voting in capitalists

>>22053134
Marx is a capitalist btw
State centralized capitalism is just tyranny of the specialists who are just parading around with “worker” on their chest.

Was just arguing with a friend as to whether the over production of cheap literature will lead to a connoisseur class obsessed with authenticity and getting 'the real thing' or , just like with other cheap entertainment, it'll be cleanly integrated first into pop culture and then the University structure such as to become part of the new standard for art.

Personally in the long term I have no hope for either the masses or the universities, they will see AI generated movies/books/etc and like it. Theory will be written, all art will be declared relative, and the matter will survive only as a labor issue rather than an artistic question.

In the short term however this might be a good time too get yourself an audience. People are still resistant to the idea, and hipsters who know nothing about comparative literature will insist they can feel the difference.

>>22053200
>In the short term however this might be a good time too get yourself an audience
Great idea, I'll just head down to the audience store and pick up a few cartons.

>>22051598
But why? None of the output can be copyrighted?

>>22051598
I fucking hate it. Why couldn't I have been born in the mid 1900's? It's not fair.

>>22053229
>thinking writers will admit when they use A.I.
Despite what copers are saying, there is no way to detect whether something is A.I. or not. They can just lie and say it's all 100% natural man-made prose.

>>22053209
Not what I'm saying. It's a good time to position yourself as 'authentic'

>>22053266
What's the best way to do that when I'm banned from all social media websites and I can only use this website and other ones like it, and if I were to ever post my writing here it would be shit on, not because it's bad, but because everyone here is a spiteful little cunt?

>>22053274
lol

>>22053200
I'm personally hoping for the immensely violent collapse of modern civilization, and the ushering in of a new Dark Ages.

We need it, at this point. Get rid of all this trash.

>>22053239
>no way to detect whether something is A.I. or not.
Well there are. AI has tells and is generally shit. And in court you'd have to prove you have legitimate claim. No drafts, or notes wouldn't work in your favour. You could copyright the prompt, but that wouldn't even reproduce the same content on the same system.

The current software out at the moment is pretty much snake oil peddled to schools and universities because they've got too much money but not enough time to check their silver bullet software.

Looking forward to services that let you upload your work to check if an AI has used it. I think that would probably kill AI fast, like YouTube copyright detection on steroids.

>>22051626
I think the problem lies in academia's bias towards certain demographics being the main culprit.

>>22051598
>I sure do love reading a lot of formulaic genre fiction!
>Combined with the AI generated lo-fi music and AI generated pictures for a nice ambience, nothing better than that to relax after scrolling through social media!

It's so funny to me that these tech bros (that went into tech for money and not interest) try to automate creative things that no person asked for in the first place. They are like flies around hot shit waiting for the next retarded rich boomer to pump their money into their shitty startup. The only good thing about hypercapitlism is that in the end monopoles control the market and startups that come up with bullshit like dies can't compete.

>>22051598
>hundreds of novelists
There are six living novelists: Thomas Pynchon, Krasznahorkai, Peter Handke, Vargas Llosa, me.
I welcome AI taking the job of fifth-rate mediocrities like Marieke Whatever and Rivulet Vuong.

>>22053652
Forgot the sixth (John Barth).
I am exaggerating and there are a few others, of course, but probably no more than fifteen or twenty. In my own language there are, arguably, only two.

>>22051598>>22051626

>love living in just the right time period to see the commodification of writing and every other human art form accelerate rapidly into some cold, unfeeling synthetic Ouroboros trained first on humanity's
this has been going for 250 years since the revolutions

AI can only manipulate 'image' planes. the image planes of art, language, speech, soon to be music, etc. what's embodied is three-dimensional and what's three dimensional is spatiotemporalized. you can simulate my every reaction to x but you can never simulate the locus I occupy. anyone who's duped by ai generated content or prefers it to real art wasn't much more than their image planes to begin with, like those nanometer thin salamanders that live on the surface of stars. see pic related: there isn't and never was any 'camera'

>>22051626
When it comes to these shitty YA novels, then yes, but goyslop has always existed. The real problem is not as much the audience as the jews in the publishing industry who prefer to publish their propaganda than finding actual talent. You are being disingenuous if you think the publishing jews are just giving to the masses what they want when most of the books being published today don't even have a chance of making money, and they are perfectly aware of that.

>>22051768
>Also the fact that most high art is innovative
And who is making high art nowadays? That guy that taped a banana to a wall and sells you a certificate for hundreds of thousands of dollars so you can do it yoursef at home?

>>22053200
>the over production of cheap literature will lead to a connoisseur class obsessed with authenticity and getting 'the real thing'
It will lead to a class of midwit redditors who think they are smart and sophisticated for reading YA goyslop written by humans instead of YA goyslop written by AI.

>>22051598
>love living in just the right time period to see the commodification of writing and every other human art form accelerate rapidly into some cold, unfeeling synthetic Ouroboros trained first on humanity's creative sum and then its own by then eerily passable sum to maximize profit. All without care to the very spirit of creativity, a core staple of us as living, thinking beings, gasping for reprieve in wake of this.
This is the price of progressing without a purpose, for the sake of progress itself. Industrialization and globalization were eventually going to be the death of the human soul (and the human) anyway; the clock is just ticking at this point.

If you only knew how bad things really were.

>>22053229
That's not exactly the case. The woman who made that comic did get the copyright of the comic as a whole, just not of each single image, because there was not enough human input in their creation, but the meaning of "enough human input" is still to be tested. Also, AI is already being used as a tool in perfectly copyrightable work, like anything done in Photoshop using its AI tools.

>>22054106
It’s true, but it’s not a consolation. The dichotomy we’re stuck between is basically fine art and commercial art and AI is even better at making commercial art. Literature blurred the lines between fine (literary) and commercial (genre) a long time ago. So it’s not helpful to know that nobody is really making good fine art. For me, the real question will be whether AI will be able to make religious art.

>>22051626
In a world where art is democratized, where religious and aristocratic patronage is dead, where the state has no interest in or use for art, not real art anyway, and people have their nerves deadened from a lifetime of education, technical work, and digital media, the idea that the masses of people could ever have good taste in art is totally ridiculous.

>>22054171
>where the state has no interest in or use for art
In what world are you living? Almost all art being made nowadays is state propaganda, and the state don't even have to directly pay them most of the time.

>>22052376
If millions of people keeping repeating the same thing about ai being merely a statistical approximation of language, doesn't this also suggest that humans merely use statistical approximations of language to talk to one another? I asked the other anon this question and it was over his head (NPC vibes)

If, however, you are attempting to say that you and the millions of other people who have dismissed ai in the last six months are using deductive reasoning to arrive at this novel concept, what exactly prevents an ai system from using the same method of deduction to arrive at novel responses? Think about it please.

>>22051598
I've talked to an AI techbro IRL, these people are like zombies.

>>22053652
>living
>pynchon
anon, i ...

>>22054181
> not real art anyway
Media and propaganda =\= art

>>22054199
because the ai could only arrive at a genius response by accident, and then that response wouldn't even hold any purpose behind it or any profound thought process. It would be like getting a really cool scenario out of a procedurally generated game once and convincing yourself in your head that it had any deeper meaning
also even if it does it would be disincentivized since the goal is mass appeal and purely mathematically the "genius" response would get the AI less appeal than a mediocre one and it exists with the primary goal to optimize so guess how that's gonna turn out

>>22054199
Not him but what people want hasn't mattered in decades. Institutions just push what they need to push for social engineering and habituation does the rest. Normie brains are like putty.

>>22054209
I get the impression that they’re motivated mainly by money but also indulging in demonic impulses. A had the realization recently that a medieval king or pope probably would’ve put them to death.

>>22054227
Not money. They're just zombies. They're straight up machine-people. I told this guy that I think AI is bad for humanity and it didn't even register to him. They're zombies.

>>22052376
>it is a statistical model for predicting words
This is unironically how we learn to speak too. It's the reason why a sentence can be grammatically correct but not idiomatic.

>>22054231
Why do you think he was like that?

>>22051598
it's not like modern authors are any good, anyway. i would much rather read an AI generated story in faux-victorian era style or early modern english than whatever slop those drug-addled urbanites are peddling

>>22051860
Why don't you just kill yourself?

>>22053200
miain difference between now and the past is that writers and poets had to appeal to the aristocratic class who had a classical education in their youth. if they were impressive enough, they'd obtain patrons and could live out their days writing and impressing this exclusive audience. nowadays, starting in the 18th ce, you have to appeal to the masses, whose tastes and judgement are of a much lower caliber, to earn your daily bread.

>>22054451
Even that’s not true. You need to appeal to the market makers. It’s the publishers, the academics, and the critics (i.e. the institutions) you have to impress before you can do anything. Our whole civilization is steered by rotten institutions.

>>22051598
Whatever makes present day corporate literary industrial complex to cruble faster

>>22054106
just because you don't know anything about contemporary art nor make any effort to learn doesn't mean that there's no one making high art

>>22054932
>doesn't mean that there's no one making high art
Why don't you name them?

>>22054937
matthew barney

>>22054937
maurizio cattelan is one

>>22054937
andreas gursky

>>22054942
>>22054944
>>22054948
Not the anon you were talking to, and I hadn't heard of any of them, but I'm sold. They are all really good.

>>22051598
Soulless bug creatures getting access to western education and technology and then imposing it on us has been a disaster of the 21st century

Very relevant to the topic
https://youtu.be/0lDryEt80-g

This is fine as far as I'm concerned. If AI art is commodified and dominates the market, it will retroactively de-commodify human art, as people begin producing art solely for their own enjoyment and personal expression

>>22055069
>it will retroactively de-commodify human art, as people begin producing art solely for their own enjoyment and personal expression
I don't think this would be necessarily good. Fan fiction is written for enjoyment and personal expression, and it's not any better for that.

>>22051598
What is it with bugman chinks and only being able to emulate or copy, even with how they use AI tech?

>>22055083
Because they are in the winter of their civilization.

>>22051755
Ultimately, writing is just a sequence of logical connections between words and punctuation in a way that represents ideas. It's composed of lots of little patterns that add up to create bigger, more complicated patterns. At the basic level of organization there are things syntax, grammar, and spelling which AI has essentially mastered. On a more abstract level are things like characters, symbolism, plot movement, allusion, word choice, and all the other tools that a great writer uses in the creation of a novel. If there weren't consistent patterns in the elements of great novels, they never could have existed as an art form. How could a new writer ever start writing a book if he had no idea how a story begins, proceeds, and ends, or even what shape it generally takes? He could try to strike out on his own and invent something completely original, but it wouldn't be recognizable as a novel. Great writers follow the lead of their predecessors, sometimes playing with the form, but always in relation to the existing tradition of literature. Even the most experimental writers are deeply acquainted with the norms of writing, which is what allows them to break the rules so skillfully. If AI can some day accurately predict the patterns that underlie all good writing, then what exactly would prevent it from following them and creating a novel of equal quality?

>>22051598
*ahem*
Uncle Ted was right

>>22051598
https://youtu.be/iQDVMuYjvRk

just googled it

>>22054199
It definitely is, to an extent, but there is a sense of comprehension and hard and soft rules that AI doesn't have. Take translation for example, AI can generate almost perfect literal translations, but the ability to grasp when something is being said figuratively, and come up with a not exact but better than exact translation of that is an art only humans are capable of.

I prefer to think of AI as a Ouija board, since they function in the same way. Does this mean that there are dark forces lurking inside the machine? Almost certainly. But as humans, we have been endowed with the breath of God which animates us and allows us to create from nothing, turn water to wine, and so on. As long as that divine spark is present, AI will never be anything more than a soulless golum.

>>22051671
>AI images are only weird looking rainbow spiral dogs

>>22055975
Who are you quoting?

>>22055993
That guy when he was talking about AI art three years ago.

>>22051598
There’s no way this is more efficient that just writing a book. Using AI would require so much tweaking and revision that you’d end up wasting far more time than you could save. I’m not against AI in principle, but using it in its current state can only dilute your work.

>>22054209
AI guys come in three breeds imo
>The Hype Guy - just wants to make money, doesn't care about anything else, was into crypto five minutes ago, probably follows some manosphere con artist (most common on twitter)
>The Resenter - hates artists/lawyers/doctors/etc. because he thinks they have it too good in life, sees AI as a way to put them in their place (most common on /g/)
>The Post-Humanist - sees AI as "the next step in inevitable cosmic evolution", has a Messianic view of AI (and themselves if they are in the industry), has canned bad faiths arguments to own the luddites when AI is criticized, will talk about curing cancer and aging but will admit the endgame is replacing humans entirely when pressed (most common on reddit)

>>22056093
I have minimal interest in AI, but I guess I'm kind of a resenter. Mostly I only get dragged into the topic by doomsayers pointing at speculative fiction to "prove" this is the end of the world and vapid self-pitying artists who I'm stoked as all hell if they don't get to make a living at it because they have infantile outlooks and nothing of any value to say to the world. Living their dream would result in an indistinguishable spew of hackneyed, undigested ideas, but this way it come out cheaper and faster, and to my understanding an AI can't meaningfully be as smug about it.

>>22056093
>lawyers
>have it good
Kek

>>22056541
Sour grapes. I'm sorry drawing was is hard for you

>>22054213
insofar as the name "Thomas Pynchon" refers to a collective of writers under a pseudonym under the employ of the DIA, he can never die.

>>22054161
Check out the reading of Revelation by Joshua Graham, compiled by /v/ anons using that voice AI some months ago:
https://youtu.be/0ZJqRQofg_I
The quality of the voice is very good, and I would argue this counts as art

>>22056093
Tag yourselves aibros, I'm 70% resenter / 30% post-humanist
My opinions come from a position of earnest satanism

>>22057086
I wouldnt worry about it