As long as there are people (companies/corporations, not necessarily single-users) willing to pay for it, I’d agree that it has staying power. But then, I don’t think that product is going to be the same as the product that’s generating those possible “Hallmark” projects. It seems like the more specialized a product is, the better-curated its database can be. I’m not speaking from any real place of authority, so could be way off on this, though.
I think TV, film, and game dev (writing and art dev - maybe even coding?) are the areas most at risk at being functionally replaced by AI, as these industries involve larger teams and tighter deadlines and are already notorious for treating many of their creatives poorly. You could see real job loss if generative AI becomes a viable option here (and I’d bet you anything that the end-consumer won’t see a decrease in price as a result of cheaper labor, either).
If a small press wants to put out a series of books where the gimmick is that they were all “written” using AI, I don’t think that’s going to have that same sort of impact.
Absolutely coding, if the job ads are anything to go by. Also terrible news for junior programmers, since that’s the group that’s being replaced (so I don’t know how the companies expect to get new seniors, but it’s not like that wasn’t what was happening before generative AI).
To be quite honest, unless it’s privately sent and never shown anywhere publically on the internet, there’s a reasonable chance it’s going to get scraped anyway and potentially end up adding to the AI algorithmns.
Not that I entirely disagree, but it was good enough to make a game that ended up almost being published. Personally if we’re splitting hairs I’d say than in interactive fiction, using AI text and passing it off as your own work is worse than AI art due to the writing being the primary product. (Not saying either should be done, but decent art won’t make a mediocre game rate well, where as there are examples of very basic art on games that have still done well as the writing/gameplay hit the mark for its audience.)
Given how long games are expected to be now, especially when people have patreons and need to meet targets I’d say the tempation to venture into AI “assistance” will become greater.
It’s always been incredibly hard to be a “successful writer” as a day job. If anything moving away from traditional publishing being the only option since pre-internet days and ability to browse the “look inside/demos” of heaps of books on demand has likely only helped level the playing field somewhat.
No they’re not.
No… But I think we’ll see more of AI generated works being “cleaned up” by humans to cut the amount of time they need to pay humans to do stuff and put stuff out on a more reliable schedule. Especially in the movie business (not that you could really tell the difference with a lot of recent stuff that just seems to want to rehash concepts/prequels/sequels/spin offs that really have very little new. Even when I know it was humans behind some of those projects given their age, if someone told me that an AI was involved if they released tomorrow, I wouldn’t entirely discount it. You can have unimaginative writing on the human side of things as well, especially if constrained by expectations.
I feel it’s very easy to disprove though, a lot of beauty around us are created by something without a soul, a simple sunset and sunrise is beautiful without any soul stuff involved.
it’s more accurate to say that only things with a “soul” can perceive something as beautiful, but AI can absolutely create beautiful and emotional work.
If the soul isn’t needed for creation then being able to create doesn’t mean you don’t have one. Just like not needing eyes to sing doesn’t “prove” that those who can sing lack eyes.
Haha, yeah I know. I was just mocking around, sorry.
I was only stepping up cause I’m working on something with AI and a bunch of brain stuff involved but I haven’t found anything of that here. If you want to talk seriously though.
No, AI doesn’t have soul, generative AI doesn’t have soul, and as far as we go, there’s no provable thing indicating we have one either.
I just don’t want to start offending people over here, I don’t feel I’m good at discussions.
Sorry to say that but a sunset is a creation. Those sunsets aren’t random* there an artistic palette behind, its impossible to deny it. And if u are, please try to create the same sunset take all the time u need.
random doesn’t even exist. Not gonna try to push math here put please verrify a little w science.
I’m working on something and I’m just arguing for the sake of research, so no offense.
So I have a soul whether I create something or not? So having a soul doesn’t mean I can create something if I choose not to create, but AI doesn’t have a soul and can create.
What’s the meaning of something beautiful in regards to having been created? AI has won art prizes competing against humans. Doesn’t that say something about it? Humans have rated an AI piece “better” than any other human competitor.
No I don’t. Nobody does. Souls do not exist, they are a fictional concept created in an attempt to find purpose in a fundamentally purposeless universe.
Denied.
It’s not random, but it’s not an artistic palette either. It’s an emergent result of pre-existing causal factors, nothing artistic whatsoever.
I’m working on a project that involves AI (No, it doesn’t use AI, it is just that there is AI used in the plot and the story, (that still doesn’t sound good) I’m not using AI, I’m writing about AI) and It’s useful getting more points of view to add more ways for the player to approach the subject.
I can agree/disagree on whatever point about souls, but someone brought up the subject, and I still value the opinion.
Isn’t the topic about everything AI? If someone wants to mix AI with x shouldn’t this be the place to discuss it?
Because when you start talking about souls, the conversation tends to get very philosophical, very fast. Case and point: someone saying “you definitely have a soul” with another person responding with “souls don’t exist” no longer has to directly do with AI.
Note: This is unlike someone saying something “has soul” which is a more an adjective in terms of describing art. Also has a different meaning in music where it can be an actual genre.
Still, I didn’t treat the subject veering off of AI, did I?
I know. People tend to bring up human characteristics in things that aren’t human all the time.
AI has shown traits that people compare with intelligence at an apparent human level, so bringing up human traits to human-like behaviors isn’t something new, but what is new is AI and the level at which those traits are.
You’re comment still had AI at the center of it’s topic. Using a theoretical “so if souls exist and humans have souls, and that is the fuel behind art then how can AI create art, etc. etc.” Just as it would be fine imo for someone to take a same hypothetical from the other side of the coin.
My comment was specifically aimed at driving people away from a discuassion where the topic was simply just “Souls exist/don’t exist”
take all the time u need.