←back to thread

170 points bookofjoe | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.367s | source
Show context
kogus ◴[] No.43644640[source]
I think we need to consider what the end goal of technology is at a very broad level.

Asimov says in this that there are things computers will be good at, and things humans will be good at. By embracing that complementary relationship, we can advance as a society and be free to do the things that only humans can do.

That is definitely how I wish things were going. But it's becoming clear that within a few more years, computers will be far better at absolutely everything than human beings could ever be. We are not far even now from a prompt accepting a request such as "Write a another volume of the Foundation series, in the style of Isaac Asimov", and getting a complete novel that does not need editing, does not need review, and is equal to or better than the quality of the original novels.

When that goal is achieved, what then are humans "for"? Humans need purpose, and we are going to be in a position where we don't serve any purpose. I am worried about what will become of us after we have made ourselves obsolete.

replies(12): >>43644692 #>>43644695 #>>43644736 #>>43644771 #>>43644824 #>>43644846 #>>43644847 #>>43644881 #>>43644933 #>>43645048 #>>43646501 #>>43647117 #
1. quxbar ◴[] No.43644736[source]
It depends on what you are trying to get out of a novel. If you merely require repetitions on a theme in a comfortable format, Lester Dent style 'crank it out' writing has been dominant in the marketplace for >100 years already (https://myweb.uiowa.edu/jwolcott/Doc/pulp_plot.htm).

Can an AI novel add something new to the conversation of literature? That's less clear to me because it is so hard to get any model I work with to truly stand by its convictions.