Wasn't a serious comment. Just one on the nature of the creative mind. I know I can't turn it off. I'm always mapping out scenes and dialog.
writers' strike and Trek
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Winter this year, it was announced in April..
How rude. How would you feel if you came across a comment accusing you of having no talent?
I'd get over it.
Also, they're fucking professionals.
Also, they're fucking professionals.
Which they won't be able to be anymore if the studios succeed in reducing them to gig workers hired to rewrite AI-generated scripts. Hence their need to strike to preserve the very existence of screenwriting as a viable profession.
If I were the writer in question and had no idea who he is, I would disregard it. I would brush it off like, "Whatever. Everyone's a critic." Assuming I thought about it at all.
On the flip-side: because I do know I disagree with him 99% of the time, in that case I'd think, "Oh. Just another thing we disagree about. Huge surprise... "
The AI revolution hasn’t even started yet. Writers can possibly postpone their irrelevance, they will not be able prevent it though.
Multi modal language models will especially kill jobs which are, as of now, considered to be intellectual. Screenwriters are a dying species, pretty soon AI will write proper screenplays, based on the showrunner’s premise. Instead of waiting weeks and months for meatbags to come up with ideas, AI solutions will write whole seasons of prime entertainment in less than a day. The content will get evaluated for success the next day and after 3-5 iterations, AI will have produced a killer screenplay without plotholes or nonsensical filler material.
The days of human creativity are almost over…
Utterly wrong. As the WGA explained it:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1638643976109703168.html
AI does not create; it merely cuts and pastes the creations of human artists, rearranging them in a way that superficially appears original and coherent but is usually just word salad. Saying that AI makes human creativity obsolete is like saying that a blender makes farmers obsolete. The machine can't produce any output without humans providing the input.
Ai is improving. I can already "write" a synopsis, or treatment, say a person wants to do a series, they input there premise into the Ai, and it pushes out some treatments for a season. At the moment it is a "Tool" @Christopher is right, its just regurgitating stuff it finds on the internet. But it is evolving, I'm unsure if it has an ability at the moment to input a script, and it "Polish" or look over it.
So, at the moment, Ai is still a tool, but give it a few years. Though one of the big things doesn't do is "Imagination" Its very linear. or in ST parlance " Two dimensional thinking"
I still whole heartedly support the writers to make sure there jobs exist in the near future.
So, at the moment, Ai is still a tool, but give it a few years. Though one of the big things doesn't do is "Imagination" Its very linear. or in ST parlance " Two dimensional thinking"
I still whole heartedly support the writers to make sure there jobs exist in the near future.
I share this with her.
More about AI: Much of the hype about AI's capability to do the job of human creators is apparently deceptive PR from AI companies, claiming their product is far more capable than it actually is: https://twitter.com/Michigrimk/status/1657966060711059458
So there is a genuine danger that studios will fall for the hype, screw over authors, and crash the entertainment industry out of their gullble embrace of false promises, but there's little danger that AI will actually replace human creators. At worst, in a few years it will become clear that the emperor has no clothes, and people will turn back to real creators and find a way to make use of the more limited capabilities AI will actually have. But the false hopes may do a lot of damage in the interim, and that's what the WGA is striking to try to prevent (and the actors' and directors' guilds may end up joining them soon if their negotiations break down too).
So there is a genuine danger that studios will fall for the hype, screw over authors, and crash the entertainment industry out of their gullble embrace of false promises, but there's little danger that AI will actually replace human creators. At worst, in a few years it will become clear that the emperor has no clothes, and people will turn back to real creators and find a way to make use of the more limited capabilities AI will actually have. But the false hopes may do a lot of damage in the interim, and that's what the WGA is striking to try to prevent (and the actors' and directors' guilds may end up joining them soon if their negotiations break down too).
If AI writes it, then AI can watch it, too. Let AI subscribe to their services and buy their products.
Wow. So much Luve Stupis going on in this post.
I think you're dead wrong here. You're clinging onto an outdated notion of what creativity is and where it can come from. Your argument is solely relying on the concept of qualia, which hasn’t even been scientifically provem…
The truth is, the entertainment industry is on the verge of a seismic shift.
AI is not just about cutting and pasting human creations. It's about understanding patterns, logic, emotions, and, yes, creativity in a way that humans can't even begin to fathom. We're not talking about a glorified blender here. We're talking about a revolutionary tool that can churn out entire scripts, filled with compelling narratives and unforgettable characters, all at a pace that leaves human screenwriters in the dust.
Screenwriters, considerd to be among the intellectual elite, are becoming a dying breed. They're about to be rendered obsolete by lines of code. Harsh? Maybe. But it is the reality of the world we're moving into. AI isn't going to just change the game - it's going to write a whole new rulebook.
It's not about rendering human creativity obsolete. It's about augmenting it, enhancing it, and taking it to places it could never go before. It's about breaking free from the confines of human limitations and embracing the limitless potential of artificial intelligence.
AI isn't just going to change the way we create content. It's going to change the way we think about creativity. So, let's not dismiss this as word salad. Let's recognize it for what it is: a new form of creativity that's about to revolutionize the world.
Now, I'm not saying that human writers will disappear completely. But the role they play is changing dramatically. The old model of a room full of screenwriters banging out script after script is fading. In its place, we're seeing a new paradigm where AI does the heavy lifting, and humans step in to provide the polish, the nuance, and the final creative touch.
Not at all. If you read my science fiction, you'd know that I'm a firm believer in the potential for AI consciousness arising in the future, and if it actually existed, I'd be a firm advocate for its rights. But it's disingenuous to mistake the primitive steps that have been taken so far for anything remotely close to genuine sentience. The hype about what AI is currently capable of is exaggerated and cherry-picked by people with an agenda. If you look closer at the actual science of what these specific programs are doing, and more importantly what they're not doing, that becomes clear. (For example, here's an article about how chatbots can't understand negation, because they only predict based on the mathematical frequency of words occurring together in sentences and have no understanding of what the words actually mean.)
It is a logical fallacy to confuse specific argument with general argument. The issue here is not the general question of whether AI will ever be sentient, but the specific question of how the currently existing programs or their near-future successors actually function and whether it constitutes any kind of genuine creativity. All they're doing is plagiarizing human creativity and shuffling the words around to create the surface illusion of an original text. Mistaking that for actual creativity is as naive as calling the police when you see a stage magician saw a woman in half.
More to the point, the issue here is not about AI sentience. It's about greedy corporations using the pretense of AI creativity as an excuse to destroy the ability of writers to make a living in the film and TV industry and turn writing work into a gig economy. Whether AI is real or not is a distraction from the actual issues. We know that human beings are sentient and can suffer, and we know that the film/TV industry is changing in a way that threatens the ability of human beings to make a viable living. That's the more urgent issue on the table here. Even if strong AI were real, the question of how to preserve the right of humans to make a living would need to be addressed.
Okay, so how the hell do you do that in a way that preserves humans' ability to make a living and be treated fairly by their employers? Unless you address that, you're just blowing smoke.
Last edited:
Right now, we are not talking about an artificial consciousness which could, by its own will create content for it’s own pleasure. We are rather starting to realize that creativity might just not be the feature of a human soul, creating ideas by transcending (or even supernatural) thought processes. You know, something like the idea of a qualia. Multi modal language models emulate the processes, which happen when you and i try to answer to a linguistic input.
Are you familiar with the upcoming of video game emulators in the late 90ies/ early 2000s? When programmers first created a software to emulate NES games on a computationally far superior device it still lagged like hell. It took them some time to come up with an 32bit emulator, which was able to properly emulate the old games just like on the original 8 bit devices.
The emulation of human language and putting it into logical context made impressive advancements over the last 5 years and it is on the very brink of becoming indistinguishable from real human interaction, which would usually include concepts like „creativity“ which are more or less words without a coherent definition.
Multi modal language models do not aim to reproduce qualia or the soul (chose whatever ideas suits you the most). Language model emulate what happens when you open your mouth or start writing stories. They emulate language, they emulate context and of course they emulate ideas. And guess what, they are getting better every day. We are not talking about decades, but about single digit years, until language models will be able to write books with philosophical ideas, connected to a coherent story.
With all due respect, you don’t even know what creativity actually is, you are merely claiming that the stories you create will socially or emotionally resonate more to humans than the ones created by contemporary AI. That is a fallacy at best, probably fueled by your fear to become obsolete.
Are you entirely sure that this is not the very thing you are doing when you come up with „new ideas“? And even more important, do you really think that an illusion is still an illusion when it becomes indistinguishable from reality. Who would still care if the illusion triggers the very same cognitive responses as the real thing?
Think about the NES emulator, today we can play Super Mario Bros in 4k…
Also, your article is outdated, just as your understanding about the possibilities of contemporary deep learning software. And i don’t mean that as an insult but as an invitation to get yourself up to speed about what happened in the last 12 months.
this is gpt 4.0
I’ve read what has been “written” by AI. While some of it is amusing, it’s basically just a slightly better version of using a search engine. Human creativity isn’t going to be threatened for a while. I really hope that we don’t get any scripts written by ChatGPT because it’s going to be awful. All it does is copy what’s already written in a recognizable format. Even the most basic and cliched sitcom shows more originality than current programs like ChatGPT. It really blows my mind that people believe it can replace human writers.
They could probably replace the CEO for studios though. They only green light stuff based what’s been popular before with no understanding of why something was a hit or a bomb.
They could probably replace the CEO for studios though. They only green light stuff based what’s been popular before with no understanding of why something was a hit or a bomb.
No, we're not. We're talking about writers getting a fair deal that lets them continue to make a living as writers. As of today, the studios have already lost more money than it would cost them to give the WGA what it's demanding. There's no logical reason for them to continue to hold out. It's purely a power play.
https://twitter.com/jonrog1/status/1658603057087938563
Again: I believe AI will one day be capable of qualia, but it's absurdly premature to mistake the superficial language programs that exist today for anything remotely close to that. If you read up on the actual science, you'd know that these programs are vastly dumber and more limited than the hype would have it. All they do is plagiarize and remix what humans have created.
Computer programs have been successfully fooling people into believing they were real people since the 1960s. That's not at all hard to do. It's a myth that the Turing test proves sentience. Turing himself called it an imitation game; his theory was that if computers could be programmed to convincingly mimic human behavior, that might offer some insight into the mechanisms behind human intelligence. But he didn't believe that would make it real intelligence, any more than an orrery is an actual solar system or a weather forecasting algorithm is actual weather.
And people with no taste may be fooled by them, and greedy executives may be content to churn out the generic pap they'd produce. But there will always be a demand for the quality of work that only genuine talent can produce.
No, I'm saying that's not the topic of this conversation in the first place. The topic is people fighting for the right to make a living. As long as you refuse to acknowledge that, nothing you say is meaningful.
Christopher is a professional author who has written numerous novels, novellas, and short stories. How many works of art have you created?
Similar threads
