mason @sweetmercury@jorts.horse

@extinct

https://youtu.be/z3lgvhbzP0s

hi

🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​🎃​

THURSDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY

Thursday, September 29, 2022 @ 9pm US Central Time (2AM UTC)

#mastoween continues with John Carpenter's The Thing

it's on archive.org which is free and ad free. watch along and live toot it with us!

That's not to say it wasn't fun, and that using it to generate prompts to play off of didn't get my creativity flowing, because it did. Human-machine collaboration is cool and valid. Maybe I'm just egocentric, though, because most of what was fun about it was what the computer prompted me to make, not the other way around.

And I'm aware that programs like that are learning from me, too. I think most creative people are aware enough to understand that -- and it does gradually temper the ability to trust your creative "partner", in the opposite way that growing into creative collaboration with an actual human being feels like.

Maybe people won't usually notice that from casually or briefly playing with AI generators, but I think it'll have that effect nonetheless. A human is almost always going to start treating a machine like a machine, no matter how human-like the machine is. It might be egotism, some kind of uncanny-valley reaction, or just the subtle perception that it is a tool and you are not. So eventually machine and human are going to grow apart, and diversify into the roles they've always had.

That said, there was one computer-generated response that made me laugh so hard I cried. It was a piece of dialogue it generated for my main character, and it was so much a distillation of him that it spooked me, in a fun way. And it was only after a couple of paragraphs of back-and-forth.

It didn't make me believe in the computer's ability to "get" humans, though.

It made me believe in the other humans, that had fed it everything it knows.

So I played with Novel AI last night. It essentially is a pretty advanced story "generator" (quotes because these things are more accurately re-generators).

It was fun, and I can see the near-addictive lure of trying to collaborate with a computer to make something real. But I don't foresee the job of actual creators going away. Not musicians, not visual artists, and not writers, either. There's just something that human beings can do that machines can't. It's not necessarily a woo thing, but it's also not likely to be ever fully explained, what that thing is, either.

Now, I think absolutely incredible art can be made by humans with AIs, and I love a lot of the visual art that's being made now. But as far as machines rendering human creators unnecessary, like many people fear -- I think there will be quickly diminishing returns on what can be done without people. What will the machines feed their "creativity" (regenerative bank) on, once the novelty of working with them to create these things has worn off?

I think it will level off at some weird symbiosis, where a certain percentage of "art" is made automatically, consumed with a grain of salt, and another form of human-centric artistic response will launch itself off this era. We'll learn a lot about ourselves, but that's what art always does.

You might look at the length of my toots and wonder why the fuck I'd need a novel generator. That's valid.

@sweetmercury if the implication is that kids in the 70s would not have cooked chicken in nyquil that is just a lie

lmao

.