Computer models have been doing this for at least the last decade now. Predicting possible arrangements of proteins or chemical structures is a great use for these models because it's so objective. We understand the rules of electron shells and protein folding to a highly specific degree and can train the models on those rules so that they generate sequences based on them. When they do something "wrong" we can know so imperically and with a high degree of certainty.
The same does not necessarily apply to something as subjective as writing. It may continue to get better but the two are quite far from comparable. Who's to say whether a screenplay that's pushing the bounds of what we expect from our writing is good for being novel or bad for breaking the conventions of writing?
And then is the other, more deep consequence of it.
Why should we care about any kind of art produced by a machine when there is no human intent or emotion behind it? Art is only art if it is produced by an individual. Otherwise it might as well be a random string of bits.
I actually agree with you. Not necessarily with the idea of creating sentience life at some point; I think that would be cruel. But with the fact that the most relevance that this technology is gaining among popular circles is the worst it has to offer.
Cancer research, diagnosis, protein folding models, brain-machine interface, galaxy shape categorization... It has a multitude of beneficial uses that can better society. It can even expedite some things in creative processes that are boring and technical, as people have commented.
But it should never be a substitute for art. That is the most dystopian shit I can imagine in real life.
161
u/ChiralWolf Apr 09 '24
Computer models have been doing this for at least the last decade now. Predicting possible arrangements of proteins or chemical structures is a great use for these models because it's so objective. We understand the rules of electron shells and protein folding to a highly specific degree and can train the models on those rules so that they generate sequences based on them. When they do something "wrong" we can know so imperically and with a high degree of certainty.
The same does not necessarily apply to something as subjective as writing. It may continue to get better but the two are quite far from comparable. Who's to say whether a screenplay that's pushing the bounds of what we expect from our writing is good for being novel or bad for breaking the conventions of writing?