Such a brilliant column. The uncritical fawning over this story by well known authors is pretty sad. The comparison to Borges?! What? I fear we're just not seeing the forest for the trees.
Loved this so much, Kurt! I don't understand how authors can buy into the illusion of creativity and intelligence when AI is only using plagiarized token prediction. Those quotes from established authors are shockingly naive about what's happened in the generation (not creation!) of that story, and it's very depressing and strange how they ascribed agency to the AI.
I may have already recommended Ted Chiang's article "Why AI isn't Going to Make Art" to you in another forum, but I'll link it again below. In your article you mentioned someone that's using AI to write a novel because they don't have time to create it themselves. That reminded me of how Chiang writes, "Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium." I strongly agree with you and Chiang that it's a betrayal of ourselves and the human-to-human connections made through writing to use AI in this way.
This is an incredible essay, Kurt, and I especially appreciate the level of research. I saw The Guardian's piece with the AI story when it came out, but I had no stomach to read it.
This whole situation is bringing up so many questions for me...
What's the point of AI writing fiction? There's so much fantastic literature that goes by unread, untranslated, completely overlooked.
Also, why are so many people hell bent on being artists but are bypassing the work of making that art? The whole point of art is the work of it. Once I'm done writing a poem, I'm onto trying to write the next one. Nothing sublime happens in the aftermath of writing. It's all in the process.
And finally, what happened to that old belief that art is what makes us human?
Thanks for writing this. Really enjoyed reading it!
Such a brilliant column. The uncritical fawning over this story by well known authors is pretty sad. The comparison to Borges?! What? I fear we're just not seeing the forest for the trees.
Loved this so much, Kurt! I don't understand how authors can buy into the illusion of creativity and intelligence when AI is only using plagiarized token prediction. Those quotes from established authors are shockingly naive about what's happened in the generation (not creation!) of that story, and it's very depressing and strange how they ascribed agency to the AI.
I may have already recommended Ted Chiang's article "Why AI isn't Going to Make Art" to you in another forum, but I'll link it again below. In your article you mentioned someone that's using AI to write a novel because they don't have time to create it themselves. That reminded me of how Chiang writes, "Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium." I strongly agree with you and Chiang that it's a betrayal of ourselves and the human-to-human connections made through writing to use AI in this way.
Thanks for this column!!
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to-make-art
Thanks, Allison! I'm not sure I've seen the Chiang article before, but I'm eager to check it out.
This is an incredible essay, Kurt, and I especially appreciate the level of research. I saw The Guardian's piece with the AI story when it came out, but I had no stomach to read it.
This whole situation is bringing up so many questions for me...
What's the point of AI writing fiction? There's so much fantastic literature that goes by unread, untranslated, completely overlooked.
Also, why are so many people hell bent on being artists but are bypassing the work of making that art? The whole point of art is the work of it. Once I'm done writing a poem, I'm onto trying to write the next one. Nothing sublime happens in the aftermath of writing. It's all in the process.
And finally, what happened to that old belief that art is what makes us human?
Thanks for writing this. Really enjoyed reading it!