That's the cost of an AI work that is derived from the outputs of others.

There's no real edge to it. Same as with the writing. The stuff that you'd latch onto (and thus remember) is simply not there, precisely because those image or word choices would be just outside its latent probability space. But because they're well inside it, your mind sees nothing novel to register.

This is also why I think human output will actually increase in value. When any AI can just "phone it in", something genuinely human will stand out (to us, not the AI) and become a bellwether.

This will literally help us realize what it means to be human.

I also don't think the solution is simply to "make responses more random", either. That might help solve novel problems (the same way that throwing darts randomly at a dartboard eventually hits the bullseye of the dartboard right next to it that no one considered), but I don't think it will help it "seem more creative".

▲

dofm 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> There's no real edge to it.

Yes, as if it is in some weird hidden dimensional sense completely uniform.

ETA: suddenly reminded of the Bateson quote about information being “the difference that makes a difference”.

	▲	fwip 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That checks out, right? We're instructing LLMs to choose from the least "surprising" tokens at each step (modulo some temperature). It feels smooth, slippery - no friction to the eyes that glaze over as they skim the text, and no bumps to snag in your memory. Like waking from a dream, recalling only the barest shapes of a few concepts or themes, until it vanishes with your morning coffee. The examples I've seen of AI music (though I avoid it on principle) seem the same.