I'm confused by the seemingly pervasive position that quality doesn't matter if a text was written by an AI.
It's a long way off still, but let's imagine we get to a place where chatgpt86-xl-megaturbo-super actually composes novels that are as good, and as original, as any of our classical authors produced in their lives.
At that point, the only reason to care about who wrote it, as far as I'm concerned, is so that I know where to look for the sequel, if applicable.
Currently however I understand an aversion to AI slop, because it's, well, sloppy. It's generic and unremittingly bland. But those are all quality issues. Slop isn't bad because it was written by AI, slop is bad because AI isn't very good at writing(yet?)
Even if the quality was better, I would still feel ripped off if I bought a book or a framed piece of art only to find out it was AI generated.
I would consider a poorly written novel to still be better quality than one produced by AI. Anyone can write a prompt and slap their name on the output, but it lacks the intention or purpose an artisanal creation, even a bad one, has.
In a purely rational world this might seem like a strange position to take, but the beauty of it all is how irrational everything is, and that’s where we can draw our creativity from.
I think it's actually rational to say that you think it's good for the world and for society for people that are compelled to do art and skilled at it have an avenue to make money off of it (or at least to be recognized for it), and to therefore choose to vote with your wallet for bespoke creators to prop up the industry.
In the same way that you could rationally choose not to shop at Walmart, even if it's superior in price, quality, and convenience, because you want non-Walmart stores to continue to exist.
> It's a long way off still, but let's imagine we get to a place where chatgpt86-xl-megaturbo-super actually composes novels that are as good, and as original, as any of our classical authors produced in their lives.
> At that point, the only reason to care about who wrote it, as far as I'm concerned, is so that I know where to look for the sequel, if applicable.
I don't want to read a novel written by a computer. I never will. I don't care how great the quality is. Novels are art and I want to read the art from a real human being.
This is exactly the stance that confuses me. Why don't want read a great book?
If I told you that The Great Gatsby was, in fact, written by a timetravelling AI, would it seize to be a great book for you?
I dunno, I guess I'm weird in that I think of AI as a tool. I don't care if an author uses pen and paper, a stick and sand, or AI, the end result is the only thing that matters to me.
Now, currently, that means I don't like AI stuff either, but only because it is so unremittingly bland and boring. That might change in the future. Possibly.
What is it about computer-written that is so off-putting on a conceptual level?
> This is exactly the stance that confuses me. Why don't want read a great book?
I read great books every day. I have absolutely no hope of exhausting my supply of great (human-created) books. I'm not interested in discussing the hypothetical world where human authors don't exist.
> What is it about computer-written that is so off-putting on a conceptual level?
If you don't understand you never will. Consuming art, to me, is engaging with the creator of that art. And I don't want to engage with a computer program.
I'll echo what other comments have stated, which is that my problem with AI slop is not just the quality but also the subtle deceit of presenting something that a computer generated as something you created. We all learned in grade school that plagiarism is bad, yet that norm seems to be thrown out the window because what AI generates didn't exist before. It's still not your work. You could argue that crafting the prompt meets the definition of authoring the work, with AI tools augmenting that into something fuller. I guess that's open to interpretation, but I don't find that a very convincing argument. It's easy to craft a prompt that is completely devoid of any real contributions.
I don't mind AI generated content. Just don't try to pass it off as your own. Like, if it's really that harmless then why would someone object to identifying it as AI generated. The fact that not everyone does tells me they're trying to deceive. Some of us object to that, and frankly I don't understand why anyone would be ok with it.
There are two problems IMO with that stance: one, they're not that good yet, and two, we don't know if they actually surpass paces of human ability to consume and flush concepts down the drain.
Right now, there are more people who can't tell or can't beat AI than people who can. There are no guarantees that those remain the cases. And I'm pessimistic(or optimistic from my POV) about that.
It's a long way off still, but let's imagine we get to a place where chatgpt86-xl-megaturbo-super actually composes novels that are as good, and as original, as any of our classical authors produced in their lives.
At that point, the only reason to care about who wrote it, as far as I'm concerned, is so that I know where to look for the sequel, if applicable.
Currently however I understand an aversion to AI slop, because it's, well, sloppy. It's generic and unremittingly bland. But those are all quality issues. Slop isn't bad because it was written by AI, slop is bad because AI isn't very good at writing(yet?)