 |
| Ah jeez, we're back to this. |
You might remember a while back I wrote a piece about people wanting to earn a ton of money using ChatGPT to write ebooks. One of the things I mentioned is that a big argument is whether or not a chatbot could create art. I said it wasn't a question we should be bothering with, and I stand by that. I'm kind of surprised no one asked which question we should be asking.
That question is, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
It's become a more important question now because of the writers and actors striking for better treatment. The CEOs of entertainment companies have decided to play the long game. They don't want to share the profits from streaming because they're greedy assholes who found a loophole and are exploiting it as hard as they possibly can. So they're waiting out the writers and actors, most of whom are NOT the millionaires you all think they are. What it comes down to is, who has more money? Certainly not those on strike. It's definitely the multimillionaire CEOs of Disney and Netflix and Discovery, etc. So who is going to lose their homes first?
Let's say the bastards win, and these writers and actors are now homeless. What do these studios expect them to do? Beg for their jobs back? There might be a few who relent, but the majority are going to say FUCK YOU to the bastards. As they should. So who will the studios turn to? Scabs? Sure, there will be a few people willing to do the work but not many. Why? Do you really want to be known as That Guy? You might have a shitty paying job at a big studio, but is it worth the hate and disgust and the scorn of your peers?
And that leaves our li'l buddy, ChatGPT. And my answer for the question I posed above. Which, by the way, is to make writers obsolete. Actors? They'll just CGI their faces onto scabs' bodies. But I'm here to talk about ChatGPT.
Simon Pegg has a few things to say about it:
All true, of course (anyone really want their movies and TV shows to have the same quality as commercials?), but let's go a little deeper than that. ChatGPT does what it does because it has access to data. ALL the data. More data than you might think. I saw a rumor that if you use Google Docs, then your work, published or not, is part of the ChatGPT grist. It's apparently in the user agreement that they can do this, and there's nothing you can do about it because you clicked on ACCEPT without reading it, just like they thought you would. We all know my feelings on user agreements. I haven't looked too much into it because I don't use Google Docs. But who knows? Maybe Microsoft has something similar in their user agreement. Not that it matters because I *don't* use their online product. I have an offline app from almost two decades ago that I use. Which, by the way, I recommend if you can do it.
But getting back to the data, ChatGPT knows enough to fake it. Yes, it has never had its heart broken and has never suffered any personal tragedies, but remember, it has ALL the data, and with that much it can easily fake those things. So my unpopular opinion is, yes, ChatGPT *can* create art. But as stated before, this is meaningless.
Because there is one thing that human beings have that ChatGPT will NEVER have. It's one of the most important things about writing, and it cannot be faked because if you lack it, you can't pretend to have it.
And that, my good fuckers, is A REASON TO WRITE. Every single thing I've ever written was done with a purpose. Yes, even my two "Monster Cock" stories. Yes, even things like Dong of Frankenstein and John Holmes, Vampire Slayer and even 6669: Demon Porn. Any writer worth their salt isn't just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. They all have reasons for writing. The only reason ChatGPT has is because some doofus typed a prompt into it. It has no other reason to "write."
ChatGPT was not created to write books. It was created "to hold a conversation with the end user," "to simulate natural human chat in an interesting, entertaining and humorous manner." Perhaps we should leave it at that.
Although to be fair I'm sure ChatGPT could come up with stories for the studios that would please everyone and not be problematic in the slightest. Maybe that's the goal. I suspect the goal might be, and here's where I get a little crazy but stick with me, that eventually the only people around will be the super rich. I always kind of thought that they needed us poors around for unpleasant tasks, but what if AI could just do that instead? Why keep the poor around? Why not better humanity by getting rid of them all. And then, after a hard day's genocide, let's kick back and say to my computer, "Tell me a story."
Pretty grim. A little terrifying. Possibly a conspiracy-of-one theory, but it's better than what those Q shit weasels have. I wish them the best of luck with that whole JFK Jr-is-alive thing.
Anyway, did you know that ChatGPT is on our side on this argument? A clever wit posed it an interesting question, and we got a perfect answer, so ChatGPT isn't entirely bad. I'll end with this:
No comments:
Post a Comment