There's no reason to think otherwise, mathematics is just the one that will fall first, but eventually we will be able to create entire stories in any writing style we want with a single prompt. Just imagine, one day you feel like reading the sequel to The Brothers Karamazov, but you want it to be written in Proust's style, that will be possible in the not so distant future probably. We're living the last days of man-made art.
So what are we even going to do with our universal high income? Will we just be playing video games until we die? That's actually crazy.
Hey, at least we won't expect perfection from eachother and ourselves. We will lose our fear of admitting we're flawed.
>>25549657Yeah, ironically enough that kid's film Wall•e predicted the future of humanity, we will be like the humans in the film that only consume all day. I hope I'm wrong, but seeing what's happening to mathematics right now made me realize every human activity will eventually fall as well, it feels like just a matter of time.
>>25549659Will we stop reproducing altogether too? Seems like we're just going to fade out.
>>25549666Nah, most men are way too horny, sex will still be common unless sex robots get normalized and they feel like real women, but that feels like a distant future.
>>25549631Sounds like you've read this essay written by a despairing mathematicianhttps://kirwinhampshire.substack.com/p/the-dark-night-of-mathematics
>>25549631There's a funny contradiction in your post. The fantasy of limitless AI art consists entirely of asking for dead human artists. Dostoevsky! Proust! Apparently the glorious post-human artistic future is spending eternity prompting machines to impersonate people from 130 years ago.
>>25549672Yeah, but I've also been thinking about that for a while now, I'm also a mathematician and while I really don't want to admit it, the truth is that this feels like the end, it might not happen soon, but it feels inevitable that AI will completely replace researchers eventually, and if mathematics is prone to such a fate then everything is, no other human activity is safe if math falls.
>>25549684In five years AI will be able to neutralise a human and biologically print their clone and put it back out there into the world.
>>25549631God, this is such a pathetic, alarmist midwit take. Generative AI is fundamentally derivative. It will just keep inbreeding on existing human culture and produce very little original value.
>>25549691That was true at the beginning, modern models are way beyond those limitations and the pace with which they develop is absurd. This is also the take of Kaczynski and he definitely wasn't a midwit, the man outsmarted the FBI for years.
>>25549691Cope
>>25549701Cope
The thing I want AI to do the most:>Pick a book>Upload it to the AI agent>Select voice actors for each character in the book and for the narrator>The AI will create an audiobook with those voice actors and even sound effects if you wantMan, I can't wait for this to become a reality.
>>25549697It's one thing to say modern models are improving fast and that they're trying to work around their inherent limitations, but an entirely different thing to think "they'll eventually replace all human creativity". The idea that we're "living through the last days of man-made art" is cartoonishly retarded. Techfags can't comprehend that art simply does not exist in a vacuum. Even if everything I've said about AI's limitations is wrong, perfect technical ability to produce a pastiche of a dead author still wouldn't make human authorship irrelevant, nor is it going to impress the people who actually care about stuff like Proust or Dostoevsky in the first place. Because if it does, then they evidently didn't understand what they were reading, or what made it worth caring about in the first place.
>>25549704Maximum Overcope
>>25549715This is so hilarious and jeetcoded. What's next, achievements and leveling up? XP for finishing a chapter? Just turn your brain off and gamify everything until every form of art has been converted into the same infinitely customizable lowest common denominator content slop.The whole appeal of literature is that you're actually engaging with the text and supplying a big amount of the imaginative work yourself. Apparently even that's now too much to ask. Better to have an AI turn Dostoevsky into a fucking Netflix show in your head. Kek.
>>25549731That wouldn't stop anyone from engaging with the work and being imaginative, it would just make audiobooks more immersive. Right now most audiobooks have only one voice actor for every single character, that's a huge turn off for me.
>>25549743because it's a reading of a book, not a radio drama
>>25549657Why wpuld they give us universal income when we're no longer necessary even as consumers? They'll kill most of us. The rest will live as basically slaves.
>>25549720Have you heard the average techbro talk? They have a very shallow understanding of how humans tick and what makes them work. They basically don't understand the transcendent and think humans are nothing more than particularly-complicated machines. It's no wonder they're impressed by AI, it matches their own incomplete comprehension of what humans are like.
>>25549894They won't kill you outright. Once AI solves the problem of interplanetary travel and exoplanet habitats, the useless people will be rounded up and sent to outer space colonies, where they'll either have to man up and fend for themselves, or die a horrible death. This is such a common trope in sci-fi that I can't believe this possibility isn't brought up more often.
>>25549903Define "transcendent".
>>25550155A cendant with its penis chopped off
>>25549720>>25549903Lol, get fucked.https://x.com/aug5thmusic/status/2102758849619062796/video/1
AI troll thread. Primary tell: "very soon." Maybe we can revisit this thread when LLMs produce novel artwork here and now in the present, not "very soon, it's inevitable really."
>>25549631AI can’t replace me having fun
>>25549631Go to the sci fi general thread, /g/, /pol/, /x/, or /biz/ if you want to post your hysteria driven by marketing from sociopathic tech CEOs
>>25549631>AI will eventually replace every human activity including writingUnironically one of the last avenues left will be the financial markets, because it's the thing that boomers covet most.
>>25549715Or go to the damn theatre, you rube
>>25550198>literal meaningless garbage
>>25549690AI will do that 5 years from now?
>>25550083They won't kill you on purpose, its just that their destruction of the environment will be too much to exist in
>>25550219Explain how AI is "destroying the environment". I must have missed that.
>>25550223You dont live next to a data center do you.
>>25550228I've heard of the background hum, but isn't it only poor people that live next to data centers?
>>25550219Yes, ultimately the real threat of AI is not necessarily the capability of the technology itself, or the idea that it will become autonomously sentient and a true conscious being or "replace all jobs", rather the threat is malevolent actors will use it for their own ends, in the same way they would have made use of any other technology or tool for such motives, and the response by corporations and governments to the prospect of the technology being able to automate certain menial office jobs or coding tasks. That is more a question of ideology and human behavioral flaws. LLMs are not super geniuses, they are programs that synthesize data in context and present it to the user in an agreeable way that its instructed to do.The idea of it threatening art is also quite overblown as it often utilizes the same characteristics and tics that make it unappealing to connoisseurs. If you experiment with AI for writing and instruct it even to write in a certain manner it still often defaults to the same tropes and diction. It can't create a novel idea unless it is prompted and influenced by the existing context it has, and only acts in accordance to a session of the user controlling it. Much of the fear around it is sensationalist and motivated by financial interests or exploitative motives.
>>25550200??? The words "very" and "soon" are nowhere to be found in the OP.
>>25550232>malevolent actors will use it for their own endsWill? Try "are". Russian hackers labor continuously to jailbreak Chinese open-weight models.
>>25550231Thats not really a point, poor people are also people, shouldn't they have good lives?
>>25550232At least someone's keeping a level head in all this
>>25550232You people here on /lit/ all seem to have a very outdated understanding of modern models. We're not in 2023 anymore, these things are developing at an absurd pace, they solved a Millennium Problem a couple of weeks ago, they write music in the style of Bach, they create art beautiful enough to win contests, it's not the case that they're still creating trashy art and the thread is not even talking about current models but future ones, have you stopped to imagine how they will be like? If they're already doing all that right now, imagine in 10 years, AI will be creating literary masterpieces in our lifetime. I don't like this at all, I'm not defending it either, but to me it seems like it's an inevitable future at this point, I truly hope I'm wrong.
>>25550239No, child. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
>>25550247Doesn't matter.They're not alive. They're not sapient. They can't make art.
>>25550264Most people I've met aren't alive. You have no grounds for denigrating AIs.
>>25549631It will certainly have an impact on immediately popular fiction, as well as how consumers find it. The quality may even improve in some areas. However, I also agree with the anon (>>25549720) who pointed out that there can still be human authorship. Literature, as art, involves a good deal of feeling and, quite often, meaningful symbolism. So an individual could still express that in the form of a poem, or a story, etc.Still, monetary incentive might be an issue for people looking for a good source of income. Discovery, too, in the short term. Nonetheless, these problems have been around for quite some time! Many classic writers sought stability elsewhere.(I've also seen some of the discussions around mathematics. It seems predictable enough that computers would perform well with large amounts of data and logic. Although, some of the handling does look fairly choppy as far as educational value goes. Other STEM fields may be more promising for employment? The purely technical side to writing may tend towards something like chess. You can still do it, but don't expect higher computer difficulties to leave as many holes.)
You unironically cannot be pro-globohomo/immigration/equality/etc., and be against AI. All the arguments for why those things are good are arguments for why AI is good also.I talk to these faggots IRL, and they will unironically say shit like that they don't care if they themselves and their own culture and their own lineage is destroyed. But then they will turn around and say "AI bad" in the same breath, it being bad because it does the things that they say they don't think are bad.Genuinely do not think these people are really human in any meaningful sense. Even a dog is more alive than these people. Even a virus is more alive; at least it perpetuates itself. These people are just the walking dead, a corpse that hasn't yet realized its heart stopped beating long ago; the fire of life burned out. God, I want to kill 'em all. I sit in rooms with them and I want to kill them. I want to kill them all.
>>25549631here's why you're wrong. I'll lay it out plainly. so long as there are humans, who are recognizably, even barely, human in their taste and capacity, they will want human art, with its charcteristic markers (imperfection, non sequitur, and the various associative "flaws" which AI can approximate, but only poorly, and increasingly poorly, for as they get better at being smart, they become worse at sounding human). as soon as there ceases to be human life and culture in the sense that we think of it, you are correct... AI will, at such a point, be undisputed lord and master of the realm, but if/when that fateful precipice is reached, there will be nothing left to defend, no stakes at all, and thus the point is moot. until AI usurps the human utterly, the writter word has merit; as soon as that usurpation occurs (and not a moment before), it does not. but we will not be cognizant of that change at the , as "we" will no longer be "us," but rather "it."qed, tldr: write. continue writing. there is no reason not to, and every reason in its favor.
