This is a fantastic framework (maybe doubly so as I just attempted to make something from a recipe that didn’t involve the microwave).
And to take your stance to a little further, the second I see “blatant” AI, I’m out. I’d much rather see something with a thesis that’s maybe not quite cooked long enough or with too much paprika that the sterile templatized stuff someone got from feeding Claude (or whatever). To be clear, I've got a few carveouts (non native speakers using it as a de facto translator, people pressure testing their *own* ideas, etc), but by and large it just feels disrespectful. Like you know I’m a vegetarian and still grabbed gas station sushi on the way home for us…
(Yes, I know I killed that food analogy. Sorry about that!)
I Feel this in my bones and yet, for some kinds of work (like the research heavy stuff I do in the day job, all the finance stuff etc.), there's a real acceleration that is legit happening. Ideas are getting generated, not just text. So I want to be SUPER respectful of that. I'm seeing GREAT work come from these collabs. But it's just not gonna get my rapt attention the way other stuff will.
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. Of course as a writer I am biased to agree with you!
This also prompted a discussion with my husband about Star Trek and food replicators. He brought up the scene from ST: Next Gen where Riker makes an omelette. Maybe that works into your AI critique of what's being written now?
I agree. So I read the bit by the computer guy you linked to.
My comment to his (overly) long missive:
"Why? you spent 30 years teaching computers to speak intelligently to each other? By intelligently I mean sounding like a creative human. And you want me and others to join you in teaching computers to talk intelligently ? To whom? Each other? Isn’t that like Sky Net in the movies? That’s a bit creepy. Sarah Conners wouldn’t like that, I don’t think..
So it’s been like 7 years since you wrote this paper( do you know there are studies done that conclude that 50% of academic papers are full of baloney? just sayin.). How’d it go? have the AI computers got any better at fooling us ?
I mean I thought humans were doing good at being creative but you think a computer can do it better? Not with my help. pal"
The defining question: should we look at the window or through it?
"Through it" is the dominant mode of contemporary writing; at bottom, it's what King is arguing for. "At it," as with a stained-glass window, is the province of writers like Browne, Gass, Beckett, DeLillo. Their influence was never widespread, even if it was overrepresented among "great writers." While I think AI will be (is?) capable of this kind of writing, I'm not sure anyone will ask it to create some.
Ironically, "stained-glass" writing is fundamentally about exploring the idea that the world is an expression of language (Cormac McCarthy: "A man's mind is aught he has to know it with"). As such, it might have some interesting insights about the nature of AI.
While I think I understand the distinction your trying to make, I feel pretty confident that AI will be/is an amazing tool for evaluating what humans have said, how we’ve said it, the ideas we’ve had, etc.. I remain unconvinced AI is — itself and without leaning on the humans who came before it — going to teach me anythign worth knowing about the human condition. On a desert island with no access to a book, a record, a movie, or a photograph, sure, better than endless sea and sand I suppose.
Very good.
Man, this is good. Thank you.
THanks ace.
This is a fantastic framework (maybe doubly so as I just attempted to make something from a recipe that didn’t involve the microwave).
And to take your stance to a little further, the second I see “blatant” AI, I’m out. I’d much rather see something with a thesis that’s maybe not quite cooked long enough or with too much paprika that the sterile templatized stuff someone got from feeding Claude (or whatever). To be clear, I've got a few carveouts (non native speakers using it as a de facto translator, people pressure testing their *own* ideas, etc), but by and large it just feels disrespectful. Like you know I’m a vegetarian and still grabbed gas station sushi on the way home for us…
(Yes, I know I killed that food analogy. Sorry about that!)
I Feel this in my bones and yet, for some kinds of work (like the research heavy stuff I do in the day job, all the finance stuff etc.), there's a real acceleration that is legit happening. Ideas are getting generated, not just text. So I want to be SUPER respectful of that. I'm seeing GREAT work come from these collabs. But it's just not gonna get my rapt attention the way other stuff will.
Fair points!
(Also I would never...)
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece. Of course as a writer I am biased to agree with you!
This also prompted a discussion with my husband about Star Trek and food replicators. He brought up the scene from ST: Next Gen where Riker makes an omelette. Maybe that works into your AI critique of what's being written now?
It’s kind of shocking how often Food is important in SF in general. Last few weeks I’m noticing it everywhere.
I agree. So I read the bit by the computer guy you linked to.
My comment to his (overly) long missive:
"Why? you spent 30 years teaching computers to speak intelligently to each other? By intelligently I mean sounding like a creative human. And you want me and others to join you in teaching computers to talk intelligently ? To whom? Each other? Isn’t that like Sky Net in the movies? That’s a bit creepy. Sarah Conners wouldn’t like that, I don’t think..
So it’s been like 7 years since you wrote this paper( do you know there are studies done that conclude that 50% of academic papers are full of baloney? just sayin.). How’d it go? have the AI computers got any better at fooling us ?
I mean I thought humans were doing good at being creative but you think a computer can do it better? Not with my help. pal"
The defining question: should we look at the window or through it?
"Through it" is the dominant mode of contemporary writing; at bottom, it's what King is arguing for. "At it," as with a stained-glass window, is the province of writers like Browne, Gass, Beckett, DeLillo. Their influence was never widespread, even if it was overrepresented among "great writers." While I think AI will be (is?) capable of this kind of writing, I'm not sure anyone will ask it to create some.
Ironically, "stained-glass" writing is fundamentally about exploring the idea that the world is an expression of language (Cormac McCarthy: "A man's mind is aught he has to know it with"). As such, it might have some interesting insights about the nature of AI.
While I think I understand the distinction your trying to make, I feel pretty confident that AI will be/is an amazing tool for evaluating what humans have said, how we’ve said it, the ideas we’ve had, etc.. I remain unconvinced AI is — itself and without leaning on the humans who came before it — going to teach me anythign worth knowing about the human condition. On a desert island with no access to a book, a record, a movie, or a photograph, sure, better than endless sea and sand I suppose.