This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This was a response to @cjet79:
But I decided I would make it a top comment, because it's my second favorite subject after sci-fi bullshit: literary snobbery with a side of AI.
First, I like AI. I mean, I like it as a tool. (And yes, I know that "AI" is still a misnomer, I understand that LLMs are just token predictors, and I think people who believe that any neural net is close to actually "thinking" or becoming self-aware, or that really, what are we but pattern-matching echolaliac organisms? are drinking kool-aid). I've used ChatGPT to build applications (I don't do "vibe coding" but I have found it increases my productivity because with the right prompts it helps me use new applications and libraries faster than I could by going through tutorials and manuals). It cannot build a fully functional application (beyond the simplest) by itself, though. It often goes back and forth recommending obsolete or unavailable libraries or suggesting moving a line to the wrong place, then recommending I move it back in the next iteration. It's smart and often makes very good recommendations for improving and optimizing code, and it spots subtle bugs and typos very easily. It's also stupid and often makes terrible recommendations that will break your application.
On the hobby side, I've been making AI art, building Stable Diffusion on my PC and even training some LORAs. The vast majority of AI art is, as they say, "slop" and very recognizable as AI, but that's mostly because the vast majority of AI art is "Type a few sentences into text box, copy picture that results." "A cat making a face." "A cute catgirl with an assault rifle giving a come-hither look to her incel AGP fetishist fans." You will get a picture that meets your requirements, but will be very obviously plastic AI digital slop, like a Walmart t-shirt or a Subway sandwich. If you take the time to learn about inpainting and outpainting and ControlNet and upscaling and advanced prompt engineering and model selection and what all the parameters actually tweak, you'll get good pictures, pictures good enough to win Scott's various AI challenges.
Are they good enough for an AI to become a renowned professional artist with a unique and recognizable style? Not yet. But artists are rage-coping hard insisting they aren't good enough to replace the vast majority of commercial artists who just need to draw hamburgers or cars or Corporate Memphis HR posters, or commissioned MCU fanservice. The sticking point now is no longer extra fingers or shadows going in the wrong direction (though most AIs will still make little mistakes that are tells for the observant- but these can be easily repaired!) but just the fact that it's still painful to go back and forth to get exactly the pose, position, expression, color shade, background, accessories, species of flower, that you want. With real artists you can talk to the artist, and the artist can do rough sketches and ask clarifying questions. With AIs, you generate 100 images, let GPU go brrrrr, and maybe you get one or two that are kinda close and still need extensive inpainting and photoshopping. Conversely, though, I have commissioned some artists in the past and while I was generally satisfied with the results, even a human will never be able to really represent the picture that's in your head. Enough time with Stable Diffusion and some photoshop ability will often actually come closer to the mark. AI art is getting better all the time, but IMO, it is not close to replacing truly talented high-end artists, just as AI is not close to replacing actual rock star programmers and innovators.
It is close to replacing the print shoppers, the commercial graphic arts majors, the SEO optimizers and storefront webapp builders, though.
So, can it write?
Yes and no. I've tried out some of the NovelAI apps and gazed upon the sorry state of Kindle Unlimited, already flooded with thousands of subpar self-published romantasy-written-while-fingering-herself slop and power-fantasy-written-while-jerking-himself slop, and now that has been multiplied seven and sevenfold by AIs churning out the results of all those Udemy and YouTube courses promising you can now make a living on Amazon without actually writing anything. Throw a million books out there with pretty covers and even if you make pennies per title, it adds up. AI has been devastating the short story market for a while now.
If we get to the point where AI can generate good stories, then... I guess I'd be happy to read AI-generated stories? I think we are a long, long way from there, though. And I have experimented. LLMs can generate coherent stories at this point. They have a plot, and some degree of consistency, and I suppose they have all the traditional elements of a story. I am not sure if they are up to generating an entire novel with one prompt yet - I haven't tried, but I know there are tools to let you coach it along to get a whole novel out of it.
But everything I have seen so far is crap. In fairness, most of what's on RoyalRoad (and Wattpad and A03 and Scribd and all the other open platforms) is crap, but you can still tell what's human-written crap and what's AI slop.
I may be in the minority here; it often seems readers just don't care much anymore and want to consoom entertainment units. But waving my snooty literary tastes here, I sometimes despair at the writing some people think is good just because it tickles their
fetishessweet spots. Some genres (progressive fantasies, litrpg, a lot of romance) are written so, so badly that if they aren't AI generated, they may as well be. An AI has no prose style except very poor mimicry of other styles; it has no ability to truly craft words and turn a phrase in a way that makes you say "Ah, yes, that is totally how that author writes." It has no way to embed themes and metaphors that echo throughout a book, it has no thematic consistency (often not even tonal consistency). Character arcs, such as they exist, are flat and linear; LLMs cannot grasp "character development" or complexity or nuance in any real way.If you want a book that's mental bubblegum, a linear power fantasy about a guy getting ever more powerful and punching bigger villains in the face, or a hot chick being fought over by two smoking alphas, and nothing more to it and not even any clever writing to sweeten the experience, just "thing happens and then thing happens and then thing happens" and maybe some purple descriptive modifiers mimicking a high school creative writing exercise, I suppose AIs can do that now. But nothing that even approaches the most derivative pastiches of true classic novels.
And that's just to produce one book. How about a series, a multibook arc preserving plot threads and MacGuffins and character development from one book to the next? An AI cannot do that, and I doubt their ability to do that any time soon.
If you're not really a reader and consuming stories is like popping open a beer and you don't care how it tastes as long as it gives you a buzz, maybe AIs will fill that entertainment need. I sometimes put AI-generated soundtracks on as background music, and while the first few minutes can be okay, after a while it sounds very samey and droney and repetitive, even to my extremely unsophisticated ear (and my musical tastes are, in contrast to my literary tastes, utterly banal and horrible).
I don't doubt AI will continue to improve and eventually we'll have the first award-winning novel completely written by AI that even experts agree is actually... kinda good. But I am skeptical. I think it will take a while. I think even when we get to that point it will be a very particular kind of novel that uses some tricks (like being a surrealist or post-modern experimental novel or something else that avoids the usual conventions of narrative structure and story development).
I think it will be a long, long time before we have an AI Stephen King or Kazuo Ishiguro or Margaret Atwood. But I think we will have AI "authors" doing a "good-enough" job for the proles. Whether the slow-motion death of traditional publishing is a good thing or not I guess depends on how much you hate traditional publishing. I think gatekeeping is good, and that's what traditional publishing does. Publishers put out a lot of books I am not interested in and even think are very bad, but I can at least tell from the cover, the blurbs, and the author if it's likely to meet my minimal standards of readability. It's not like sifting through sewage for something sparkly. More like picking a few good apples out of a bin of mostly rotten ones.
I celebrate the flourishing of platforms for anyone to put their work out there and a handful of indie authors are killing it on Amazon, but increasingly they are no different from the handful of authors who make it big in trad publishing- there are a handful of big winners, but most earn below minimum wage for their efforts, and now many thousands who basically earn beer money if that are competing with LLMs who can scratch the same itch they do.
While I do agree with everything substantive and specific you wrote, I think the framing falls into a trap common to a lot of thinking about AI. Specifically, that AI will simply extend or accelerate a given domain and technology. In this case, publishing and fiction.
There's not going to be an AI written book that wins any prestigious award. This is because it would be foolish to simply have an AI write one immutable story. Instead, "AI writers" will be either fine-tuned or wholly trained models that people use to write stories on the fly that still adhere to a central plot, world, and character collection.
To use a common reference point, let's take Game of Thrones. People have their favorite characters, subplots, settings, etc. With an AI-writer-model, you could say "Hey, write a new subplot where that blonde with the dragons and whatnot flies on up to the blizzard place and fucks around for a while." (side note: I never watched or read GoT, ironically enough, so all my references are going to be bad)
Now, you're creating new content that still stays within the "world" of GoT. And it works at innumerable levels of detail. The casual consooomer will write one sentence slop generator stuff - and love it. The aficionado will create complex subplots and tweak small elements of character profiles to see how these reverberate throughout the grander story. I predict that once the cost of GPUs gets low enough (or models get efficient enough) people will literally be writing and producing full scale movies at home.
Instead of human authors and writers being the nucleus of "art" it will be a constellation of models, with humans recombining them ad infinitum. I look at this as a good thing. You can un-cancel your favorite show (The Wire!), Hemingway becomes immortal and produces infinite books. Unlimited GoT fanfic erotic (......yay?)
I know this will happen because I'm already doing it. My mental bubblegum is hardboiled neo-noir paperbacks. Think something in the vein of The Last Good Kiss. Over the course of a dozen 2 - 3 hour evenings, I've put together a GitHub repo of characters, settings, themes etc. I've used an AI toolchain to develop scenes. I then line edit them mostly for continuity issues (which AI still stumbles on) or to make a sudden plot twist because I feel like it. I am not doing this to publish a book. I am doing this because I genuinely find it far more entertaining and exciting that Netflix scrolling or re-watching the actually good stuff. And it's low stakes. I don't really care if the plot doesn't quite hold together. I don't care if a character's motivation self-contradicts after a while. It's fun. It's unlimited fun. Over the 40+ hours I've put into it, I've probably spent $100 in API credits. You can definitely argue that's actually quite a bit less cost effective than Netflix etc. But I believe the received value is excellent.
AI will not be a linear extension of current industries. I'm not saying it's a step-function for everything either. It will simply be a very hard to predict tangent. In many cases, this will be absolutely good for all parties. In many cases it will be a massive tradeoff and shift in the "center of gravity." I think there are only a few cases I can see where it represents a system-breaking potential.
Anyways, I'm off to writeread about Detective Jar-Jar Binks' latest case involving Anton Chigurh.
I feel like apps like Infinite Worlds are already tapping into this kind of thing. It's a relatively decent AI Choose-Your-Own-Adventure website that allows for a human creative to set up "worlds" with set plot points or details for players to play through. It's not as good as my favorite AI-powered game to date (the sadly defunct Medieval Problems), but it seems to have taken a writing forum I frequent by storm.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem for writers is that outside of really amazing talents, 99% of it is some flavor of bubble gum. You don’t need to create award winning stuff.
Take science fiction. A lot of it is some form of retooled space opera. If I took the basics of such a story — a story set in space, space battles, robots, and so on — I’d probably be able to prompt a LLM into producing a decent first draft of a space opera. Taking story elements and recombining them is how the shelves of barns and noble get filled. Yes, most of it, from a literary standpoint, is crap. I don’t think most people who appreciate good literary fiction are going to dispute that 99% of the stuff available is even decent as literature. It’s only better than trash TV in the sense that it requires you read the story yourself rather than having actors read the story to you. But then again that’s what the public generally wants in entertainment. They don’t want to have to think about what they’re reading, they don’t even really want to notice any particular literary quirks of the author. They want to mostly escape the world and for the most part be able to congratulate themselves for reading instead of watching a video or playing spider solitaire on their phones.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, it is already happening, and it was even before AI. Entertainment media can be provided bespoke - that's exactly what artists working on commission do. For a whole lot of people and purposes, the quality/price curve is or very soon will be in AI's favor. I have a couple hours of music about wizards drift racing and I am eager for the moment I can poke at an AI for a bit and receive custom made retro game bubblegum tailored to my exact whims.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm willing to predict a >50% chance that some guy in his basement (okay, maybe expand it to a "dedicated team of five or fewer people") manage to produce a feature length (90 minute) film that is completely AI Generated and, to the general audience's view, is on par with a mid or low-budget Hollywood fare, in terms of 'quality' of the end product... by the end of THIS year. Its already been 1 year since I saw the Shadowglades 'trailer' which, despite being just 2 minutes of disconnected imagery, portrayed a world I would really like to enter and set stories in. And just today those folks put out a new trailer that is just as visually interesting, and much more dynamic and coherent! I can tell who the protagonist is!
I'd predict it WON'T be an action movie because no video AI I've seen can produce a legible fight scene, plus all the model restrictions on depicting violence. Not Scorcese quality for sure, and it'll play to AI's strengths and eschew its shortcomings, but it will be coherent visually and plotwise.
But even if that basement guy started TODAY, if he can produce 1 minute of usable footage a day, on average, it'd be 90 days to get the footage, which leaves another 90 to edit, adjust, produce (AI generated) soundtrack, and fine tune actor performances and 'line reads'. Doable for a dedicated enough, decently talented enthusiast with enough money to burn on the credits. And that assumes someone isn't already halfway done with one already.
I'm already champing at the bit to start work on the pilot episode of an anime adaptation of one of my favorite books, and the early results I've been getting with just the free options available have convinced me I could pull off producing a ~20 minute episode in about 1 month if I were able to fully 'lock in' to doing it. I won't lock in, life just won't allow that right now but it'd be such an invigorating project that, like you and your pulp novel generator, I'd be willing to spend like $100/month or so just working on it for the sheer pleasure of seeing the end product, even if its never published or enjoyed by anyone else.
@faceh @phailyoor It wasn’t done with AI, but one guy in Latvia already managed to effectively make an academy award winning box office success from his basement. It’s called Flow
More options
Context Copy link
How much are you willing to wager on this claim? What are examples of a baseline of mid-budget Hollywood?
"Mid-Budget Hollywood" would be approximately any recent A24 film..
With stringent enough definition and an agreeable arbiter, I'd put up $500 in favor of it, at even odds.
Note I'm NOT saying the film gets a theatrical release or gets published on a streaming platform, just that someone releases the movie for the viewing public, even if its just a random download link, and an average American citizen could watch it and NOT immediately guess it was AI-Generated. Doesn't have to fool a film buff, but also could fool an adult, not just a kid.
I'd also still consider it a win if the film were less than 90 minutes long, but that's the fairish benchmark for 'feature length' that would differentiate it from a TV episode.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My use case is similar to what you describe. A gacha that I play has 300+ playable characters, that’s 50k of possible interactions just one-on-one (100k if you care who’s on top, har-har) — forget official writing, there are not enough fanfic authors for that. DeepSeek might not get what I’m going for with an experiment victim who retains emotions but has trouble expressing them, and a guy with literal emotion transceiver as a race trait who just doesn’t have many emotions, but after pointing it out it can write a passable scene between the two.
I’d be surprised if none of gachas are working on officially integrating such generative functionality already.
More options
Context Copy link
You may be right that AI basically creates a new sort of entertainment experience (e.g., tooling together a pipeline to create your own homebrew fanfiction). And there is nothing wrong with just doing what's fun. My reaction was mostly just, I guess, a defense of actually caring about literary quality. Not that everything you read/enjoy has to be high quality (I like my litrpgs and cheesy space operas too.)
Oh, I think you were right and have a very valid point.
In regards to "high art" literature, I think we're going to see a revenge of the typewriter. Writers will make a point to not only not use AI, but to disconnect entirely and write only from inside their own brain. I earnestly believe some will even resort to using typewriters again as a verifiable medium - there's no way I AI'ed this. Hell, maybe some will even return to longhand.
And this will create both excellent literature, and a snobbery class of weirdo "purebread writers" who still turn out slop, but they do it with artisanal pencils and free-range raised tree paper.
Tree paper? Like the stuff you wipe your ass with? I only read works scribed on vellum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link