domain:youtube.com
Amadan
I will be here longer than you
10m ago
This was a response to @cjet79:
I am willing and happy to read AI generated stories.
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.
faceh
18m ago
I mean that gives the game away.
Those ones hate men perceiving them in ways they don't consent to. Across the board.
They'd object if the guy was imagining them in their underwear or a bikini. They'd object if he was imagining them wearing a sundress and looking at them with loving desire.
If its a man they DO want fantasizing about them, they'd just as soon want to project the fantasy images into his mind to get his attention.
We sort of know this because as soon as phones were able to send photos, attractive guys started getting lewd and nude photos sent to them, often unsolicited! Same deal.
So there's your question, should we be taking efforts to control men's thought processes and how they use their own computer hardware in order to accommodate/protect women's feelings?
Perhaps more clarity is called for. I'm using therapy to refer specifically to psychotherapy. At least in Ireland, "psychotherapist" is a protected term. Life coaches are hence definitionally not therapists, as no qualifications are required to call oneself a life coach. Nor are public speaking coaches.
"Everyone could benefit from guidance and mentoring from a third party" and "everyone could benefit from psychotherapy" are two very different claims.
faceh
23m ago
I should genuinely have known better than to trust a reddit link to work as intended.
gafpromise
28m ago
I would push back on therapy being grouped with the other things. Therapy, broadly speaking, covers an extreme range of practices and modalities. I mean sure, if you're going to stick with DSM-V definitions (which insurance surely requires), those are meant to be more clinical and cleanly defined. This is dysfunctional; that isn't dysfunctional.
But people seek therapy for lots of reasons. Do you consider a life coach a therapist? How about someone to help you get over your fear of public speaking or someone to help you better organize tasks? I'd wager just about everyone has something they wish they were better at, some lack that they feel in their life. It can be hard to match up someone with the right therapist, the right intervention, but when it's successful it's absolutely worth seeking out.
So yes, I would bite the bullet and say that absolutely everyone could benefit from therapy, in the sense that we need someone outside ourselves to encourage, validate, motivate us and point to helpful tools and resources. For many people this is religion. For many people this need can be filled by a close network of friends or family. Those people have a natural, organic source that meets this need, but many other people do not. The need for validation and accountability is nevertheless, I would say, nearly universal.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
33m ago
How can we determine what the modal prostitute is like?
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
52m ago
There is extensive evidence from numerous disciplines--psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics--that culture has an effect on behavior. You mention significance--do you mean statistical significance? That would require numerous studies with numerous groups, and even then there's the question of generalizability. I think to simply look at "Asians" and make assumption XYZ then look at 2nd or 3rd generations (presumably "outside" their culture? To whatever degree?) and make more assumptions is a weak analytical design.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
55m ago
I know poly isn't for me, but if someone says it works for them, who am I to argue?
Many people claim things are good for them that self-evidently aren't. Whether this is one of them or not isn't easily answerable, but you don't actually have to accept a junkie's claim that he just really enjoys the freedom of living in a tent.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1hr ago
But because our culture glorifies working in the sports, fashion and entertainment industries, and scorns working in a normal job like a normal person (bullshit jobs,4 soul-crushing desk job etc.), lots of people keep pursuing their dream job long past the point at which it’s abundantly obvious that they’re not talented enough to make a living as a rapper or streamer.
Most people trying to make it as rappers and streamers probably don't actually have a powerful skill set that could be swapped out for a strong income elsewhere, so the people I feel really bad for are the postdocs plugging away in research labs well into their 30s, making a pittance and crossing their fingers that they'll finally get an academic offer. Academic research isn't quite as extreme of a rockstar profession as rapping, but it is actually a gamble with enormous opportunity cost relative to other options that high-IQ people that are willing to work long hours can take.
The biggest piece of advice I can give to talented young people is to stay flexible, that you don't actually know what your dream career is when you're choosing the starting path as a teenager.
Karpal
1hr ago
For me (and I think I'm not unusual amongst older guys) it has a negative effect on my physical fitness.
It's enough of a pleasure that the risk of injury and the physical wear-and-tear is something I'm happy to mitigate by lifting and calisthenics (which I don't enjoy). The cardio benefits that were amazing when I started have diminished since I got good enough to be lazy and injury adverse enough to avoid going all out.
I love it, it's a mental escape at the end of a day and it's an attractively simple social group, but there are less destructive activities that I might have developed a taste for.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1hr ago
Many women have their self-worth tied up almost entirely in how other people view them. They are self-centered enough to believe that they should be in full control of how others perceive them and that anyone who is perceiving them in a way they don't approve of should be punished. They think people shouldn't be allowed to fantasize about them sexually without them being in control--and thus able to exploit--those fantasies. Men, and society in general, should ignore their whining and tell them to get over themselves.
FtttG
1hr ago
The fact that similar patterns are visible in other countries with a strong union tradition (e.g. France, UK) but without legal analogues to the American antitrust legislation you cite.
FtttG
1hr ago
Scott, by his account, has a good marriage, a tightly knit community and a pair of twins. He still finds poly a net-positive to his life. I know poly isn't for me, but if someone says it works for them, who am I to argue? Maybe you'd argue they should give monogamy the old college try so they can make an informed decision on which suits them better, but follow that line of reasoning far enough and you'll find yourself arguing that every man should have sex with another man just so he can be absolutely sure that he's straight and not just a closeted gay/bi.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
My opinion that unions are evil is largely based on the negative externalities they impose on society, the distortionary effects and inefficiencies they wreak on the economy, and their strong and not-at-all-coincidental historical affiliation with organised crime.
But how much of that is intrinsic to unions, and how much is a result of a specific implementation of unions, under which they are immune to antitrust laws while companies are not (1 2)?
FtttG
1hr ago
The Holodomor was a half-deliberate half-targeted famine which killed 4 million.
A quibble: some estimates put the death toll as high as 5 million.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1hr ago
if practised by a person who is weird or abnormal,1 it will work better than adhering to the status quo
See here's the thing... I don't even think it works better than the status quo for almost anyone. I strongly believe if these poly people had good marriages, a tight knit community, and children, they would be happier and better off.
SigurdsSilverSword
1hr ago
May 7th, the day the Conclave started (no number given but ranked 3rd)
May 5th (-0.176; fell due to bad press after SA coverup accusations
April 1st, the favorite at -1.796
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
"Legalized prostitution is good"? For every independent escort charging rich businessmen $5000 for a dinner and a gentle romp there's multiple women turning tricks for their pimps in exchange for a small cut of the profits and a daily dose.
This sounds like a strawman. What about the middle of the curve—the prostitutes who are neither desperate streetwalkers nor luxurious escorts, but merely work for reasonable wages in clean, legal brothels?
The first example is spot on, and it's pretty much the same as the OnlyFans one (very attractive women stand to gain, others less so).
My opinion that unions are evil is largely based on the negative externalities they impose on society, the distortionary effects and inefficiencies they wreak on the economy and their strong and not-at-all-coincidental historical affiliation with organised crime. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the modal worker stands to benefit by joining one or not.
FtttG
1hr ago
Ah, interesting. Funnily enough, one of the few words in the Irish language I think the average Irish person could be expected to recognise and understand is "beangarda", meaning a female police officer (as opposed to garda, which is a male police officer).
Great post!
I don't have any problem with the idea of "luxury beliefs" in the sense that some beliefs appear to indeed be things that it is costly to believe, and that some people are able to bear the cost while others are not. I think that what makes them tricky is that the costs themselves are arguably grounded in what other people believe. Where "luxury beliefs" get controversial seems to be when it is a matter of controversy as to whether the costs are themselves a consequence of the belief, or a consequence of e.g. social norms.
Post-WWII, American culture underwent a radical shift. Progressivism to that point had mostly been about the perfectibility of mankind through social programs--public education, proper nutrition, clean water, etc. were things that many American communities still lacked circa 1920. In the century from 1870 to 1970, the percent of illiterate white Americans over the age of 14 dropped (PDF) from 20% to 1%; the percent of illiterate nonwhites dropped from 80% to around 4%--and those percentages went to about 0.5% and 2% in the ten years following. Similar strides were made in nutrition, hygiene, clean water, etc. and we were exporting these advances, too--engaging in imperialism modernization efforts around the world.
But today if you've "caught the vision" of progressivism, you needn't pursue it very long to discover that the low-hanging fruit is well and truly plucked. Of course new children are still being born (for now...) so there's always more work to be done, but the extent of visible progress achieved by the progressive project within living memory circa 1995 was unprecedented and jaw-dropping. We'd conquered nature so thoroughly that the only thing remaining to hinder our own progress was... other people!
Prototypical progressive thinkers--I'm thinking specifically of John Stuart Mill, here--were very interested in the idea that we should all have maximum liberty, constrained only by the compatibility of that liberty with everyone else enjoying liberty in similar quantities. "My right to swing my fist ends where your right to swing your fist begins," I suppose, though there is probably a more pithy version of that floating around somewhere. At the root of this is the idea that we are all the best judges of our own flourishing, provided we start from a place of adequate education.
So here in the 21st century, we have responses to your identified categories.
- Gender transition is a way for people to flourish by breaking the bonds of restrictive social constructs. The only costs are those imposed by transphobes.
- Sex positivity is a way for people to be honest and open about what actually brings them pleasure. The only costs are those imposed by slut-shaming.
- Drugs are a way for people to pursue their interest in feeling certain ways. This is more complicated and may not apply to certain highly lethal drugs, but the costs imposed on e.g. marijuana or nootropic users are predominantly imposed by moralizing busybodies.
- Psychotherapy is a way for people to flourish with the help of trained professionals. The only costs are those imposed by... psychophobes? Do we have a neat slur for people who think therapy is for the stupid and the weak?
- "Do what you love" may be the single most obvious good that any human could choose. If you read Freddie deBoer's manifesto, his whole "imagine a world where..." is a story about people being free to just do what they want, when they want to, without any consequences being imposed on them by society--indeed, with all possible consequences being absorbed, costlessly and without a single judgmental comment, by society.
I think that some of the rising conservatism I see in today's young people--which of course the Cathedral has already tarred as right wing extremism--is a growing suspicion that these claims about the source of oppression being socially constructed, which it may have been understandable for people to believe as recently as 50 years ago, no longer plausibly hold water.
- Gender is more than just a social construct, and a true sex change operation would involved extensive (impossible at current tech levels) brain surgery, to say nothing of the endocrine system. Sorry, you're going to have to wait for better tech.
- Sexual feelings are more than just a social construct; pair bonding has biological roots and slut shaming is a defense mechanism against defections from the stable equilibrium of general monogamy.
- Psychotherapy might be beneficial for the truly damaged, but most likely you're depressed (or whatever) as a result of trying to believe things your biology tells you that you shouldn't believe. Psychotherapy is a way to maintain in humans the view that their inability to thrive in the new progressive world is their problem, not the progressive world's problem.
- If we all really did what we love all the time, we would all starve to death in short order. Or if we really did manage to make robots do everything for us, our antifragility would lead to widespread psychological breakdown due to a universal crisis of meaning. Humans are evolved to do the work of humans, not to perpetually enjoy only the enjoyment of humans. Loss of the latter means the extinction of the former.
I'm intrigued by the fact that these are all actually fairly empirical disputes--they're just not the kinds of questions it is easy to get clear answers on. Sociology is tricky even when you don't have political activists thumbing the scales, and these days the scales are so covered with thumbs as to render the payloads utterly invisible.
This all applies, I think, to polyamory as well. I can imagine a society in which humans were more like bonobos--where we had sexual interactions as part of all of our social interactions. The first step, I suspect, would have to be the eradication of sexually transmitted disease! But psychologically this would require a transformation that seems to run deeper than culture. Sexual jealousy is universally attested. There are apparently people who can make polyamory work, and for whom it arguably works very well (though a question arises--if you have to make it work...). But for those for whom it doesn't work, I don't think the problem is poly-shaming or other cultural roadblocks. The problems seem more biologically grounded than that. My question is whether the rationalists now doubting the viability of polyamory will realize that this has structural implications for some of their other beliefs.
(In particular--the sneer faction of the ratsphere has always been comparative conservatives about polyamory, and yet they are if anything more progressive than the modal rationalist when it comes to, say, transsexuality. I notice that I am confused.)
Tree
1hr ago
Well, truth be told, I was thinking of my native germany, where job offers as well as official new language guidelines require phrasing of the type “workers …. and workerinnen” for everything.
The Illuminatus! Trilogy is great for this. It's a window into a worldview that's very specific to 1960s and 1970s America, dressed in absurdist storytelling.
The Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher. It started out when someone claimed that you needed a good idea to write an engaging story. Butcher disagreed, and the person making the claim bet him that he could offer up an idea so stupid that no one could make it work. The idea in question was "the lost Roman legion meets Pokemon".
Butcher took the bet and played it completely straight.
More options
Context Copy link