What constitutes AI is complex. Yes, the vast majority of what we hear about now is just bigger, better, faster version of what was previously described as automation. But at some point a change in quantity may become a change in quality ... or not. I'm inclined to think that physics might stand in the way of singularity, at least.
But most of that is a straw-man argument anyway. Sure, the big companies will be chasing AI/automation for its money-making possibilities, but on the way there they will likely sponsor many diverse and interesting side-line investigations, because this sort of thing can produce unexpected benefits, and because the PR value is good for business. So I would not be at all surprised to see projects arise that deliberately try to generate an artwork of some sort that will gain popular appeal/acceptance as an artwork - long, long before AI/automation could be expected to do this on any commercially useful level.
Which brings us back to the OP's original questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read
[...] What do writers here think about AI generated books? Assuming Google and major publishers move in this direction, what do writers think about machines "taking away jobs" and if such software is ever released under an open source license would you consider using it to prototype your own stories and to otherwise accelerate your own release cycle? [...]
|
It seems to me that the two questions here assume different things. "Taking away jobs" assumes an AI solution that can wonder off on into VR somewhere and come back to you with a new story. This is quite different to software that might be used by creative individuals to help in the creation of new work - as suggested by the second question.
Automation could conceivably produce the second. If it does, I imagine it might be something to the effect of a
mellotron but for writing. (I'm making this up as I go along, don't take me too literally.) If so, the true creativity would lie with the expert that can use such a tool effectively, as Mike Pinder managed with the mellotron for
The Moody Blues. I have trouble envisaging how such a thing might work in practice, but assuming it came into existence my guess would be that many existing writers would continue as they were, and only some would adopt the new tool, and perhaps only for some work.
If a truly creative AI could be sent away to think up a brand new novel then there is no point asking whether writers would use such software, because it wouldn't take a writer to use it. The impact of such an AI on the world would depend on many factors. If the sophistication required meant that only a very limited number could be run on very specialised hardware, then it would be just as if a few new writers came on the market, and the "taking away jobs" would be effectively irrelevant. Or maybe we will get KoboVac and KindleVac running quantum processors, and these new e-readers of the future won't carry any books at all*, instead the owner will say "I'd like a new cosy murder mystery in the style of Agatha Christie" and the software would start to tell you the story, perhaps making it up as it went along. Around
then writers would have to worry about losing their jobs ... but I'm not panicking yet.
* I oversimplified for the sake of effect. Humans are social creatures, we want to share and talk about our experiences - which is why we're all here, yes? So in fact these e-readers of the future will need to be able to save and share books their owners particularly enjoyed. And this distinction make it seem likely that writers will still have jobs. Yes they will face competition, and it's possible to conceive human tastes in stories will evolve to prefer AI (or to abhor it, anyone's guess), just as our tastes have evolved in recent decades to want action from the first page.