f0Ri5
Versed in the lewd.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2021
- Messages
- 1,134
- Likes received
- 48,027
Right now, I see a lot of people panicking about this new software. Artists worrying about being replaced, writers worrying about being replaced etc.
So me being me, I thought—'hey, why dont I try to give myself a leg-up by trying out this thing? If it can make writing easier for me, then that's great.'
As you may have deduced from the title, my experience was... not that great. More than 'not that great' it was actually dogshit. Not hating on the guys that made this, it's incredible and obviously a W.I.P., but I do think people are either panicking like the world is ending when really, the current software isn't that powerful.
The creative writing stuff I produced is lackluster, and the art was pretty darn horrible. For example, I tried to produce an evil (hecate posessed) wonder woman art piece similar to the witching hour or tales from the dark multiverse. It was B.A.D. I mean holy hell. I'd have more success drawing the thing myself. When something more generic is requested, like just plain wonder woman, it's able to produce some decent stuff, but there's plenty of generic wonder woman pics available already.
https://labs.openai.com/s/kDVfbd1WenOC9guwNCPA80Fq
As for chatGPT, the best way I can describe it is like those '300 words or less' creative writing assignments we had to do in high school. It's really, really not suited for writing +100 000 word novels. Theoretically, it should be possible if you keep prompting it correctly (and the constant prompting is so annyong and time consuming that I eventually went back to just writing it myself), but the final product will ultimately be inferior to a human written novel. The major reason for this is because it's unable to create a plot that long or set things up that only pay off later, which is, you know, the whole point of any creative writing piece that's not a short story.
It's also incredibly basic. You won't be getting any thought provoking stuff like victor frankl's 'Man's search for meaning.'
If you think about how it works, it makes sense. Ultimately, AI is a tool for mass-producing things that already exist. The reason why it's capable of writing or producing art in the first place is because it's 'trained' on the massive amount of stuff that's out there on the internet already. For any writer with ambition, what they want isn't to make something that already exists, but something new and innovative. You don't make money and become successful by keeping the status-quo.
I've read some arguments in line with 'well, humans aren't really creative either, they just recombine stuff they've encountered to produce something that presents an illusion of creativity'. However, I don't agree. While humans also do that, we didn't come into existence knowing how to speak, write, build, paint etc. All those things were invented—the english language, the pyramids, math, the mona lisa...
If I can use an example like Deep Blue, the famous AI that defeated Kasparof and the other chess masters. While it may be capable of making an unexpected move, it will never know how to play chinese checkers, poker, monopoly or, idk, starcraft or something, unless people program it to do that.
TL;DR: I tried that stuff and it didn't work for me. I didn't intend for this to come off as derogatory as it did, the guys that made this are obviously awesome and there will definitely be some big changes because of this tech, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as people on the internet are making it out to be.
So me being me, I thought—'hey, why dont I try to give myself a leg-up by trying out this thing? If it can make writing easier for me, then that's great.'
As you may have deduced from the title, my experience was... not that great. More than 'not that great' it was actually dogshit. Not hating on the guys that made this, it's incredible and obviously a W.I.P., but I do think people are either panicking like the world is ending when really, the current software isn't that powerful.
The creative writing stuff I produced is lackluster, and the art was pretty darn horrible. For example, I tried to produce an evil (hecate posessed) wonder woman art piece similar to the witching hour or tales from the dark multiverse. It was B.A.D. I mean holy hell. I'd have more success drawing the thing myself. When something more generic is requested, like just plain wonder woman, it's able to produce some decent stuff, but there's plenty of generic wonder woman pics available already.
https://labs.openai.com/s/kDVfbd1WenOC9guwNCPA80Fq
As for chatGPT, the best way I can describe it is like those '300 words or less' creative writing assignments we had to do in high school. It's really, really not suited for writing +100 000 word novels. Theoretically, it should be possible if you keep prompting it correctly (and the constant prompting is so annyong and time consuming that I eventually went back to just writing it myself), but the final product will ultimately be inferior to a human written novel. The major reason for this is because it's unable to create a plot that long or set things up that only pay off later, which is, you know, the whole point of any creative writing piece that's not a short story.
It's also incredibly basic. You won't be getting any thought provoking stuff like victor frankl's 'Man's search for meaning.'
If you think about how it works, it makes sense. Ultimately, AI is a tool for mass-producing things that already exist. The reason why it's capable of writing or producing art in the first place is because it's 'trained' on the massive amount of stuff that's out there on the internet already. For any writer with ambition, what they want isn't to make something that already exists, but something new and innovative. You don't make money and become successful by keeping the status-quo.
I've read some arguments in line with 'well, humans aren't really creative either, they just recombine stuff they've encountered to produce something that presents an illusion of creativity'. However, I don't agree. While humans also do that, we didn't come into existence knowing how to speak, write, build, paint etc. All those things were invented—the english language, the pyramids, math, the mona lisa...
If I can use an example like Deep Blue, the famous AI that defeated Kasparof and the other chess masters. While it may be capable of making an unexpected move, it will never know how to play chinese checkers, poker, monopoly or, idk, starcraft or something, unless people program it to do that.
TL;DR: I tried that stuff and it didn't work for me. I didn't intend for this to come off as derogatory as it did, the guys that made this are obviously awesome and there will definitely be some big changes because of this tech, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as people on the internet are making it out to be.
Last edited:
