> 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.
> 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.