The influx of AI into the creative industries should be considered and responded to as an attack, because it is one. It's malicious actors trying to undermine and destructively extract value.

It's still painfully obvious when a novel was written by AI--the quality is nowhere near good enough--but that's not actually the point; the point is the sheer volume of spam which clogs up search results and harms discovery.

▲

frez1 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

agreed. creatives themselves have nothing to worry about because AI generated novels are a very poor imitation of one crafted by humans.

the issue is the review processes from publishers cant scale

	▲	ungut 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think that is right. There is always a commercial and non commercial duality to art. Artists need money. Many artists hone their craft and make their money by producing commercial products, corporate music or web ads or whatever. I think your prediction is naive; this will take a huge, irreversible toll on art.

▲

galsapir 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yep. i think it talked about a lot in the context of research, but not enough (or maybe im just not exposed to it) in relation to the arts.

▲

alksdeef 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the blatant theft and re-appropriation has to be the largest scale attack on the human psyche/soul/whatever you want to call it this world has ever seen.

at this point, the only solution i can see is wholesale rejection of all technologically produced novelty.

we need harder lines drawn in the sand, person by person

	▲	ungut 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Word. But here we have about 300 sweaty nerds claiming 'AI training is like learning' and similarly misguided hogwash. Not sure how such a culture war can be won against people with no regard for intellectual property, the beauty of art and a fleet of propaganda chatbots (yes, I'm dying on that conspiracy theory hill any day).