Yes and no. I generally believe that risk-aversion is a very risky strategy. The greatest threat facing the world is bean-counting MBAs, and they’re doing their damndest to destroy culture for the sake of risk minimization.
At least you won’t be feeling stagnant, for a while. But I’ll answer your question more completely.
Various things have been discovered that have allowed a certain amount of automation in storytelling, but one thing that can’t be automated is passion. By automation I’m not talking about “artificial intelligence,” I’m talking about—what programmers call “tooling.” Movies nowadays are almost always visually stunning, and that’s because of algorithmic work in light and shading, character animation, hair simulation. Similarly, there’s also a “canonical story” you can read about in a book called Invisible Ink.
The canonical story doesn’t tell you how to write dialog, and not surprisingly, dialog has become incredibly weak. On one hand you have capeshit, where characters talk in quips, and on the other The Rings of Power, where everyone talks in weird, deep-sounding non sequitors.
This is what I mean by risk aversion. A lot of beautiful graphics conveying nothing. A lot of electricity used to run computers for no reason at all. This is all very expensive, and expenses have to be justified with spreadsheets.
There are still good things out there, there’s still passion in the world. It’s just getting harder to find.
Thank you so much for showing me this.
I’ve always had a hard time describing everything looking the same, sounding the same, feeling the same. With Execs trying to push AI into storytelling it’s just going to be more of the same.
And while there’s a lot of technical nuance to this, deep learning is nothing more or less than random recombination of its input. The difference between GPT-2, GPT-3, and GPT-4 is how the randomness is conditioned, but it doesn’t change the core fact: trying to use deep learning for storytelling would be the greatest breakthrough in cultural stagnation that the world has ever seen.
Yes and no. I generally believe that risk-aversion is a very risky strategy. The greatest threat facing the world is bean-counting MBAs, and they’re doing their damndest to destroy culture for the sake of risk minimization.
On the other hand, check this out.
What the fuck is this… I both love and hate it. it’s amazing.
When you see him, are you fearful? Are you scared? If you’re not, you’ve been fooled. When you see him, what do you feel?
This youtube channel will occupy my entire brain capacity for awhile…
At least you won’t be feeling stagnant, for a while. But I’ll answer your question more completely.
Various things have been discovered that have allowed a certain amount of automation in storytelling, but one thing that can’t be automated is passion. By automation I’m not talking about “artificial intelligence,” I’m talking about—what programmers call “tooling.” Movies nowadays are almost always visually stunning, and that’s because of algorithmic work in light and shading, character animation, hair simulation. Similarly, there’s also a “canonical story” you can read about in a book called Invisible Ink.
The canonical story doesn’t tell you how to write dialog, and not surprisingly, dialog has become incredibly weak. On one hand you have capeshit, where characters talk in quips, and on the other The Rings of Power, where everyone talks in weird, deep-sounding non sequitors.
This is what I mean by risk aversion. A lot of beautiful graphics conveying nothing. A lot of electricity used to run computers for no reason at all. This is all very expensive, and expenses have to be justified with spreadsheets.
There are still good things out there, there’s still passion in the world. It’s just getting harder to find.
Thank you so much for showing me this. I’ve always had a hard time describing everything looking the same, sounding the same, feeling the same. With Execs trying to push AI into storytelling it’s just going to be more of the same.
And while there’s a lot of technical nuance to this, deep learning is nothing more or less than random recombination of its input. The difference between GPT-2, GPT-3, and GPT-4 is how the randomness is conditioned, but it doesn’t change the core fact: trying to use deep learning for storytelling would be the greatest breakthrough in cultural stagnation that the world has ever seen.
Umami!!! 🫛