Stephen King: My Books Were Used to Train AI One prominent author responds to the revelation that his writing is being used to coach artificial intelligence. By Stephen King Photo-illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Millennium Images / Gallerystock. AUGUST 23, 2023, 9:28 AM ET Self-driving cars. Saucer-shaped vacuum cleaners that skitter hither and yon (only occasionally getting stuck in corners). Phones that tell you where you are and how to get to the next place. We live with all of these things, and in some cases—the smartphone is the best example—can’t live without them, or so we tell ourselves. But can a machine that reads learn to write? I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a lot. AI programmers have apparently taken this advice to heart. Because the capacity of computer memory is so large—everything I ever wrote could fit on one thumb drive, a fact that never ceases to blow my mind—these programmers can dump thousands of books into state-of-the-art digital blenders. Including, it seems, mine. The real question is whether you get a sum that’s greater than the parts, when you pour back out. So far, the answer is no. AI poems in the style of William Blake or William Carlos Williams (I’ve seen both) are a lot like movie money: good at first glance, not so good upon close inspection. I wrote a scene in a forthcoming book that may illustrate this point. A character creeps up on another character and shoots him in the back of the head with a small revolver. When the shooter rolls the dead man over, he sees a small bulge in the man’s forehead. The bullet did not quite come out, you see. When I sat down that day, I knew the murder was going to happen, and I knew it was going to be murder by gun. I did notknow about that bulge, which becomes an image that haunts the shooter going forward. That was a genuine creative moment, one that came from being in the story and seeing what the murderer was seeing. It was a complete surprise. Could a machine create that bulge? I would argue not, but I must—reluctantly—add this qualifier: Not yet. Creativity can’t happen without sentience, and there are now arguments that some AIs are indeed sentient. If that is true now or in the future, then creativity might be possible. I view this possibility with a certain dreadful fascination. Would I forbid the teaching (if that is the word) of my stories to computers? Not even if I could. I might as well be King Canute, forbidding the tide to come in. Or a Luddite trying to stop industrial progress by hammering a steam loom to pieces. Does it make me nervous? Do I feel my territory encroached upon? Not yet, probably because I’ve reached a fairly advanced age. But I will tell you that this subject always makes me think of that most prescient novel, Colossus, by D. F. Jones. In it, the world-spanning computer does become sentient and tells its creator, Forbin, that in time, humanity will come to love and respect it. (The way, I suppose, many of us love and respect our phones.) Forbin cries, “Never!” But the narrator has the last word, and a single word is all it takes: “Never?”
It is not AI at all it literally doesn't create, it takes images others have created and collates them, same for text. It uses existing work to make derivatives of said work. DD
Neu-metal came from heavy metal, which came from rock and roll, which came from the blues, etc. Most everything is derivative. There a few sparks of original genius that push things forward, but it is exceedingly rare. Almost every human endeavor is just re-arranging lego blocks a few geniuses have left for the rest of us normies.
Yes things are built on other things. We stand on the shoulders of giants. That doesn't mean it doesn't take will and determination to come up with something new and original even if it is developed from old ideas and technology. What we don't know about AI is what is the will or intention behind what is being created or is it just a gumbo of let's throw a bunch of stuff in a pot and see what we get.
There is, at least currently, no will or intent beyond human prompting.... I don't think it's necessary either. I think it's pretty clear that AI will be able to create average human level art of all types. Logos, print and internet ads, are here... stuff like your average YA novel aren't far behind. It may need to be more specialized than something like chatgpt, but The Quest, Rebirth, Overcoming the Monster, Comedy, Tragedy, Voyage and Return.... lego pieces of structure and pacing. Will AI be cranking out masterpieces of the human condition.... not anytime soon, but 50 Shades of Grey? Divergent? Yeah, and that's what the average writer is capable of.
I would argue that electronica is the most innovative genre of the past quarter century. Where you're making a comparison to adding on Lego bricks to existing models, to take your analogy further, electronica is literally a sandbox of Lego that can be built from the ground up.
Related. one very important thing she brings up is that the AI ability to create compelling images is superior to humans. That doesn’t mean the AI is better able to design. The problem with architecture is that a compelling image isn’t the same as a good design.
That's awesome. Going to forward it to a friend of mine who can't stand robots or AI. "Look ... the fancy doodlers are going to get replaced!"
That was the very thought I had when she laid out the competition. Is it going to make sense? AI is faking it until it can make it
That is just means the AI is just at a small fraction of what it can actually do much like we only have access to a small portion of our brain..... That is going to be one for the ages.....
Harry Potter 1980's Yakuza: Harry Potter Scarface: Pokemon Hunter German Alpine Star Wars Adventure: Japanese Star Wars: Japanese The Dark Knight https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cxi_U7MtGP0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
I don't know what to make of the present and future anymore, it seems everything is about to be upended.
Much like the Matrix to millennials, people 10-20 yrs later will talk about Inception in a non ironic way because collective dreams at different levels will have their own economies along with whatever stops spinning at the top
Jason Pargin did a little reel (can't find it) about how fashion essentially froze 20 years ago. I think it has a lot to do with the rise of the internet and the lack of control of fashion pipelines. 20+ years ago you got fashion from movies, TV shows, magazines and newspapers. Now you get bombarded with a million different influences a day. Sure, there are trends but I think they're mostly teen-early 20's and they're not as prevalent, especially once people diverge into their own little social media bubble where everything else is different.
Algo dominance The tyranny of the algorithm: why every coffee shop looks the same From the generic hipster cafe to the ‘Instagram wall’, the internet has pushed us towards a kind of global ubiquity – and this phenomenon is only going to intensify
