Is it even possible anymore for someone to break through as a genuine writer and intellectual? There are too many things preventing this happening nowadays >1. The spread of AI and Internet addiction generally making people more illiterate, stupid and adverse to reading books as our mass culture becomes more oral-based through videos and podcasts>2. Most of the books that are being written and published are overt liberal propaganda promoted by the industry with the same core themes (romance, smut, diaspora subversion, self-help, LGBT, fantasy), written largely by affluent women >3. There is no appetite for genuine hard-hitting literary fiction anymore and no way to make an impression, least of all if you're male and try to write something beyond those pre-determined themes
>>24943528AI cannot conceive of an original idea. Everything it does is derivative. It has the ability to write flawlessly and possibly combine ideas into a coherent story, it will always lack the artistic and human element that separates an acceptable work of art from an excellent one.
>>24943534lmao if this is what you are holding on to then you are hopelessly lost, ai can do this if silicon valley was more interested in anything other than writing code or winning math competitions
>demoralisation cope thread
>>24943581NTA but how? there is no experience it has to draw from, which is foundational to all artistic expression beyond a certain point of specificity. It would have to skip past individual experience altogether and be more original than shakespeare or debussy because it has no personality to apply
>>24943581No, it can't. Original ideas are expressions of matters of fact, which stem from sensory experience. AI has no awareness or ability to synthesize conscious experience. Any fictional works of art produced by AI are guaranteed to be derivative to a fault, barely coherent, and emotionally bankrupt. Also, if I might add, you're a fucking moron.All fields
>>24943594lmao, have you watched what nano banana can do, it keeps improving video generation and you think literature is exempt from this, soon no one will be able to tell what's real, i understand you want to argue, but just follow the progress of what ai is increasingly able to do, nobody will care whether they are derivative if no one can tell what's real anymore, and the original argument is tired and fatigue, ai can compete in the math olympiad and can win coding competitions, if that's not a demonstration of originality then i don't know what is, heck, ai derived music is playing on youtube right now, its good to skeptical, what you two are doing is downright delusional denial, you do not want to engage with it to measure its progress, you just want to repeat the same tired criticisms from 3 years ago
>>24943608>another retard mistakes graphical fidelity for fictional idea coherence
>>24943608actual retard.
>>24943581Btfo>>24943594>>24943599You have no original ideas. A LLM can shit out a much more elegant Tolkien, updated with modern language and ideas, because Tolkien is in the training data, along with Pynchon. While it’s true a LLM cannot produce something genuinely novel, it can certainly stitch together ideas in its training set to produce pseudo-novel works at a much higher quality than humans can. One would argue however there is nothing new under the sun, and whatever original ideas you two geniuses had were probably a vector sum of multiple different inspirations. I would hardly call that original.
>>24943609another retard thinks there's a difference or that anyone will care 5 yrs from now, if this wasn't real, you wouldn't be complaining, artists wouldn't be complaining, heck if you were the least bit competent in whatever you do, you would not be arguing or pissing your pants right now
>>24943615i will care.
>>24943528Just get on substack and start posting short stories man. The new way, like every other artistic medium in the big 2025, is through self promotion. Gamdevs have to do this, painters have to do this, musicians have to do this. Get over it and get to work. Tradpub is dead!
>>24943644is it possible to make money on substack ? why not just self-publish on amazon or whatever that way if your books gain traction it will lead to sales.
>>24943641none of you coping retards have any idea what is about to happen, its really surprising how willfully clueless everyone is about ai, how we keep managing to convince ourselves that its a nothing burger that will soon fade, lmao
>>24943653It's not human. It doesn't have a soul. It will never produce real art until it IS human, until it DOES have a soul, and I won't hold my breath for it to get one.
>>24943647That's usually the sales funnel. Post non-fiction/poetry/short stories on substack and other socials to gain a following, and then drive them once they are fans into buying your novel. From amazon or wherever.But yes, substack itsself has a subscription system; I'm currently subscribed to a writer there.
>>24943653i didnt even say anything about AI i was asking about self-publishing can you answer my question instead of spouting >the end is nigh
>>24943659ok so its kind of like a patreon for writer where you subscribe to a writer you like to get access to their writings correct ?
>>24943677Basically. And you can choose which part of your content to reserve only for paid subs. Even down to timestamps in videos; like, you could have half a video free and the other half paid. But it's also a social media so it's not exactly like patreon.
>>24943528>is it possiblei did it just last week actually
>>24943673if you can't see how self publishing and ai are connected, i can't help you
>>24943679I'm on Substack, Twitter, and Facebook; I've actually got several thousand followers on Twitter. But I've found it a poor medium for sharing fiction. What people like on Substack are essays, not stories, I've found.I'm actually going to start sharing fiction on my own website, my own domain name, instead.
>>24943691*I've found Substack a poor medium for sharing fiction, is what I meant.
>>24943691>I'm actually going to start sharing fiction on my own website, my own domain name, instead.Always a good idea if you have the patience to set it up.
>>24943644The only way you're going to successfully post short stories and serialized chapters of a novel on substack -- and having them be well-regarded while also getting paid for them -- is if you're already a well-known, reliable writer. You don't get any traction otherwise and this is why this substack model has not produced any great literature yet.
>>24943703I confess I've sometimes thought of sharing it HERE once the site's live and I've begun to put out my story, but I know self-promotion is generally frowned on here on /lit/, and besides, I don't want to clutter the board with my own stuff.Maybe my hope is that the story grows in popularity enough that it finds its way to /lit/ organically, and then I can just namefag and contribute to discussion in threads I myself don't make.
>>24943528Anon went to see a thread on /lit/. The OP said, 'Venerable sir, since you have not counted it far to come here, a distance of a thousand li, may I presume that you are provided with counsels to break through as a genuine writer and intellectual?'Anon replied, 'Why must OP use the term "break through"? What I am provided with, are counsels to being a genuine writer and an intellectual, and these are my only topics.
>>24943719>I know self-promotion is generally frowned on here on /lit/so many people do it anyway, disguising it as posts from obsessed "fans" honor levy
>>24943528>Is it even possible anymore for someone to break through as a genuine writer and intellectual?These are their own, separate problems. If you're going to compound them, then no, it's just this side of impossible for someone to break through as a writer and intellectual. Generalist intellectuals have been replaced by increasingly specialized "experts". That's not going to change. Breaking through as a writer is not trivial, but it's certainly more plausible. >The spread of AI and Internet addiction generally making people more illiterateLiteracy isn't decreasing, at least not yet. Attention and critical thinking are. >adverse to reading books as our mass culture becomes more oral-based through videos and podcastsBook sales haven't been meaningfully impacted by the advent of YouTube or podcasts. The overlap is marginal. A return to oral communication isn't the problem you're making it out to be for the same reason. >>2. Most of the books that are being written and published are overt liberal propaganda promoted by the industry with the same core themes (romance, smut, diaspora subversion, self-help, LGBT, fantasy), written largely by affluent womenInstitutional capture is a very real problem, whether you subscribe to those views or not. It's an attempt to manufacture and coerce consensus. That's an admission of defeat. If they were intellectually honest or if they really believed in the moral and ideological superiority of what they were peddling, there would be no need to shout over the top of everyone that the won they game, flip the table over and sit on top of it. Righting the table is admittedly a challenge. >There is no appetite for genuine hard-hitting literary fiction anymoreSure there is. > no way to make an impression, least of all if you're male and try to write something beyond those pre-determined themesThat's quite a bit more challenging. Challenging is not impossible.
>>24943534>AI cannot conceive of an original idea. Everything it does is derivative.People don't do much of that either, we're very derivative by our nature. Unexpected synthesis is where most good or novel ideas come from. LLMs can do that, and in ways that human brains can't. >>24943594LLMs draw from collected human experiences. They don't need to experience anything to do that. I wouldn't argue that what they do is "art", per se, but it can imitate and emulate art, and successfully enough to fool most people. They can emulate whatever personality you construct for them. >>24943599>Original ideas are expressions of matters of fact, which stem from sensory experience.Terribly inaccurate and incorrect. Sensory experience is subjective, not a matter of objective fact, and original ideas virtually non-existent. LLMs don't need to be aware or conscious to simulate awareness or consciousness to a degree that the differences become trivial. And this all assumes that you or I or anyone else is aware or conscious, which isn't a fact either. >Any fictional works of art produced by AI are guaranteed to be derivative to a fault, barely coherent, and emotionally bankrupt. How can you guarantee that? I don't think you can. >>24943608>ai can compete in the math olympiad and can win coding competitions, if that's not a demonstration of originality then i don't know what isI don't think that's true. Math and coding are derivative by their nature. You take givens or functions and extrapolate from there. You don't need originality to do that, or much of anything that we do. Enough iterations would sufficiently emulate originality anyway. >>24943612>You have no original ideasVery arguable point. There might be some human originality, but if there is, it's a tiny sliver of our output. >>24943653Anyone insisting that LLMs are "AI" is probably a retard.Anyway, none of this "AI" shit has anything to do with what OP was saying, he was only talking about its effects on literacy, intelligence and our desire to read.
>>24943528I'd argue it's the only way to break through anymore. As labour markets approach a global equilibrium (brought about by inshoring labour and offshoring factories) and capital becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few monopolists, combined with AI, the fact is that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around in the west... nor are those jobs going to be sufficient to pay for any kind of lifestyle beyond that of menial serf.This isn't a conspiracy, Western governments are actively promoting the idea that "you will own nothing and be happy" and releasing study after study forcasting exactly this kind of scenario.So when your life no longer economically viable, what can you do? You either accept longer hours for less pay every year for the rest of your life, or you opt out. And what does opting out look like? For some people it will be art. For some technology. For many drugs, pornography, and so on. But the only think that really makes sense is politics.Because when all the power and prestige is concentrated in a couple nodes of the system, and you have nothing to gain by playing by the rules, suddenly it becomes incredibly attractive to try and simply grab life by the nodes and hope you come out the other side the winner.I predict that we are going to see several decades of coups. You cannot simply push the majority of young people out of society, give them zero stake in the system, zero hope for social mobility, and expect them to simply disappear into video games for the rest of their lives. It scares me to talk to the youth and realize that we are raising a generation that believes in nothing at all.
>>24943830>I predict that we are going to see several decades of coups. You cannot simply push the majority of young people out of society, give them zero stake in the system, zero hope for social mobility, and expect them to simply disappear into video games for the rest of their lives. It scares me to talk to the youth and realize that we are raising a generation that believes in nothing at all.You can drug them with vr, porn, etc. Most people will live like livestock, tolerated because the alternative is unthinkable, then later outcompeted by ai's increasing energy and water footprint. There's simply no way to avoid mass layoffs, and there's no way to beat companies that have AI. The rest who can take care of themselves will establish parallel black market economies that are decentralized and a few might live inside cyberpunk like dystopias within the control of the companies that developed more capable AI.
>>24943528Just write about what is happening to you now. In the future it will be classic. No one will ever find it though
>>24943528Yes if you have a rich well connected family.
>>24943653>>none of you coping retards have any idea what is about to happenThen tell us.
>>24943581AI is just rearranging inputs to generate outputs. It can't generate anything beyond the scope of its inputs because of the inherent limitations of data and computation. Hegel says that thinking brings us into the unknown whereas a computer is not capable of thinking. AI-copers keep moving the goal posts to redefine the notion intelligence to fit generative LLMs that just take slop inputs and rearrange it into slop outputs. This is not intelligence, nor does it generate anything novel.
>>24943528it's called university
>>24943528>Most of the books that are being written and published are overt liberal propaganda>falling for the Politics As Team Sports psyopif you honestly think this, what hope do you think you have of even recognizing an Intellectual were one to present themselves?
>>24943534>2021: AI will never generate a realistic picture>2022: Okay that's sorta real but I can still tell it's fake if I spend 20 minutes looking at the picture with a microscope, but it'll never do video anyways so it doesn't matter>2023: Lmao that video is retarded it'll never be able to string together coherent scenes and it can't even do audio>2024: Okay maybe it's getting better at coherent videos, and they figured out how to create audio, but it's not like people will even want to watch those videos>2025: Okay maybe these short form AI videos and videos with AI voice over are extremely popular on Facebook and Youtube, but it'll never come up with an original ideaWho wants to guess what comes next?
Only truly inspired human art will prevail in the age of AI and that's okay. And also AI seems unable to capture meter in poetry which has already died anyway but at least us formalists can boast that.
>>24945150Mentioning video and image generation to hide the fact that LLMs have been plateauing for more than two years now is hilarious. OpenAI has burned through 12 billion in a single fiscal quarter. They should be more concerned with generating some “new ideas” to recoup those losses.
>>24945216>OpenAIthey are doomed. but enjoy the AI bubble while it lasts
>>24943528no
>>24943880What a load of nonesense. The idea that AI is this inevitable, dystopian supermachine is just a meme invented by tech companies to boost their stock. Just earlier today I was searching up information of Google about Nigeria's economy in the 1980s and AI quotes a list of unemployment statistics sourced from the US department of labour. Ridiculous.It's useful for some tasks, extremely useful even, but the average normie is far far far too stupid to actually be trusted with the basic fact-checking it takes to use it effectively. Thus the many cases of normies citing papers that don't actually exist, sourced from an uncritical conversation with a fucking chatbot.If anything I expect it to put a premium on intellectual labour in the near future, since most white collar workers are just outsourcing their brainpower to a digital ouiji board.
