Ted Chiang as eloquent as ever:
"The selling point of generative A.I. is that these programs generate vastly more than you put into them, and that is precisely what prevents them from being effective tools for artists.
[...]
Many novelists have had the experience of being approached by someone convinced that they have a great idea for a novel, which they are willing to share in exchange for a fifty-fifty split of the proceeds. Such a person inadvertently reveals that they think formulating sentences is a nuisance rather than a fundamental part of storytelling in prose. Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium. But the creators of traditional novels, paintings, and films are drawn to those art forms because they see the unique expressive potential that each medium affords. It is their eagerness to take full advantage of those potentialities that makes their work satisfying, whether as entertainment or as art.
[...]
The task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in the world."
Read the whole essay. It's brilliant. #ai
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to-make-art
tante /
npub1j8…kld5q
2024-09-02 07:17:56
Author Public Key
npub1j8vya2y336yh2fkxqmepgf704l3lxd5rtqml7g0fndx7umrlc22qvkld5qPublished at
2024-09-02 07:17:56Event JSON
{
"id": "e2c08cd4bc30c98d2cae1b07cc6f78f24ec97aed664b6df9430e8735009ec158",
"pubkey": "91d84ea8918e897526c606f21427cfafe3f336835837ff21e99b4dee6c7fc294",
"created_at": 1725261476,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/113066736122591723",
"web"
],
[
"t",
"ai"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://tldr.nettime.org/users/tante/statuses/113066736122591723",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://tldr.nettime.org/users/tante/statuses/113066736122591723",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "Ted Chiang as eloquent as ever:\n\n\"The selling point of generative A.I. is that these programs generate vastly more than you put into them, and that is precisely what prevents them from being effective tools for artists.\n\n[...]\n\nMany novelists have had the experience of being approached by someone convinced that they have a great idea for a novel, which they are willing to share in exchange for a fifty-fifty split of the proceeds. Such a person inadvertently reveals that they think formulating sentences is a nuisance rather than a fundamental part of storytelling in prose. Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium. But the creators of traditional novels, paintings, and films are drawn to those art forms because they see the unique expressive potential that each medium affords. It is their eagerness to take full advantage of those potentialities that makes their work satisfying, whether as entertainment or as art.\n\n[...]\n\nThe task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in the world.\"\n\nRead the whole essay. It's brilliant. #ai\n\nhttps://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to-make-art",
"sig": "d56e20a93fff746a8c57068cb328141eff9e419d9730804a633b63c8e9746390a3ab0db141533e2449cd111963865efa15662c14266f0bb6532c1eb52b56db28"
}