AI written news articles

SV reX said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I don't think the quality or lack thereof defines whether it is AI or not.  You are describing unrefined AI.  Cheap.  Garbage.

I think the definition of AI is that it continues to self analyze and self improve.

An ability to string words together based on statistics doesn't impress me.  But some of the more advanced systems can write a movie script that most people can't identify as being written by a machine. 

I don't think the quality indicates if it's AI or not. Intelligence implies understanding, and that's what's missing. These generative models - even the best ones - only iterate based on feedback. And that feedback has to come from a source that can actually comprehend, which means a person. So the LMM becomes a draft writing tool, guided by a creative. It's like the jump from painting to photography and then to Photoshop. You still need the operator for the tool.

If you can't identify that a movie script is written by a machine, that says more about the quality of movie scripts than the machine. Most movie scripts are just rehashed material anyhow.

Beer Baron said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I see strong use cases for LLM and other generative AI in specific situations. And other places where it just won't work.

My wife does programming. For just hacking together code that is effectively a module you slap into a program, AI can generate code just as well as any contractor. AI can't *design* the program. It's not what you want figuring out the components in place. If something goes wrong, you need a person who *understands* to figure out what the problem is and how to fix it.

For writing, AI will probably become competent at dry reports to gather and compile information. If a lawyer is preparing a case, it will probably do a better job than a clerk to go out, find relative case law, and put it into a report. It will be able to write perfectly serviceable contracts and letters of notice. It will *not* be able to put together a legal strategy or argue.

AI will be able to write natural sounding dialogue, but it will never be able to imbue that dialogue with subtext.

AI will never write the coffee scene from Pulp Fiction. It will never write a line like Winston Wolf saying, "Lotta cream. Lotta sugar," that people on this forum will argue about. AI will never include a bizarre aside like that to indicate how different a character Winston Wolf is from the others in the scene. That he drinks his coffee the way he likes it, because he's such a badass he doesn't need to put on airs.

AI can create content. AI can create images. AI can create text. AI can't create Art.

LLM are just replacing Stack Overflow for programmers :)

About lawyers and preparing case law, that's actually happened and it didn't turn out well. It's a great example of the difference between putting together likely chunks of text and actual understanding. If the LLM can't find sources, it'll just make one up and it will be impossible to tell unless you do the research yourself.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/lawyers-have-real-bad-day-in-court-after-citing-fake-cases-made-up-by-chatgpt/

But for boilerplate, sure. You can generate boilerplate already. I'd still want to read any contract fairly carefully as there's no actual reasoning behind it, so while it might read like a real legal document it may have massive holes in it as nobody has actually considered the content and what it means.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I'm aware of that case. That's something that can and certainly will get fixed, much like AI not being able to draw hands.

And I agree that you will still need a lawyer who understands things to make sure it works. That's why AI won't replace lawyers. It will replace the menial tasks that support lawyers.

SV reX said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I don't think the quality or lack thereof defines whether it is AI or not.  You are describing unrefined AI.  Cheap.  Garbage.

I think the definition of AI is that it continues to self analyze and self improve.

An ability to string words together based on statistics doesn't impress me.  But some of the more advanced systems can write a movie script that most people can't identify as being written by a machine. 

It's not really about just quality, originality matters, too. AI only learns and uses in a manner that it's told to do. Would it have come up with Cubism?  Would it have seen the unknown benefits of DI?  Would it have been able to come up with the iPhone?  
And AI optimization is only as good as what it's told that optimized is. Granted, it's come up with some cool and creative designs, but they are all constrained by what we know at the moment of programming. 
Not that there is anything totally wrong about that- but to expect real original solutions or art can't happen. And that kind of damns the current state of the art in tv and visual art, if I can be so bold. Doesn't FX do the zombie show?  How many more versions of that do we really need?  

SV reX said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

My son is a high end videographer. He has earned 2 Emmy Awards.

He expressed a concern to me recently about how AI was affecting the movie industry, and that it could impact his job. Like any good dad, I encouraged him and said "You are an extremely talented creative. AI won't affect your job. AI can't create art".

Then I talked to my cousin. FX is one of my son's customers.  I asked him about my son's concerns, because I really didn't believe it.  He confirmed- my son was right.  FX has always pursued the highest levels of artistic excellence, and AI was beginning to make real significant changes in the industry.

The landscape is changing. 

This gives me hope we may see more originality out of Hollywood instead of just repackaging the same handful of stories over and over and over again with minor changes. 

There's been a very distinct lack of originality in the movie industry for decades. Just changing race or gender and repackaging as "new and improved" doesn't cut it despite what the loudest creative's and "critics" want to screech. 

Of course there's exceptions, I don't particularly like Jordan Peele, but he's at least been able to push some original movies out. FX had a good run of original content for a while. SOA, American horror, American crime stories, justified, nip tuck. But even they're slipping a bit and just rehashing with Mayans mc, a new style of justified, that goddawful vampire show. 

Anything that will breathe some new life into the industry, or at least scare the current "let's just repackage this old thing" so called creative's into coming up with something new is a positive move as far as I, a consumer, am concerned. 

my hope is that AI berkeleys up the entertainment industry so thoroughly that people will go out to their garages and entertain themselves by building challenge cars.

They are already having trouble selling movie tickets for rehashed rehashes of Superhero movies. Lets put all the old scripts into a computer, process it and get more automated content derivative of stuff that has already been done.

Yeah. That will work.

In reply to SV reX :

One of my problems with all of this is the hypocrisy of the executives choosing AI to replace their workforce and not themselves, despite AI probably being even more capable of replacing the executives "for the good of the company" than the workforce.

Regarding the movie industry writers:  One of the big issue they have is a lot of what they produce (may not be their fault) is essentially what AI does, rehash, and re-write old content / concepts.  Think of almost any sitcom (I am not sure there are any anymore, I certainly don't watch them), or some of that Netflix content, they absolutely full of formulaic writing.  The same could be said for many movies.  Why pay a person to do that?

Of course, as noted, AI is just pulling from, and imitating, human content (which is why I am not sure I really considering actual AI, just a search engine with a good natural language processor).  Without new actual human content, you could potentially get a sort of regression to the mean effect, where all scripts are almost the same (best fit result).

And here, is what Bard (Google AI) thinks is dangerous about AI to writers (I am sure this is just cribbed from various online articles):

AI is not necessarily dangerous to human writers, but it does pose some potential threats. These threats include:

• Job displacement: AI-powered writing tools can automate many of the tasks that are currently done by human writers, such as content generation, editing, and proofreading. This could lead to job losses in the writing industry.
• Devaluing of creativity: AI-generated writing can be very good, and it is often difficult to distinguish from human-written text. This could lead to a devaluation of creativity, as people may come to expect that all writing can be done by machines.
• Spread of misinformation: AI-generated text can be used to spread misinformation. This is because AI models are trained on large datasets of text, which may include false or biased information.
• Loss of control: AI-powered writing tools can give users a lot of control over the writing process. This could lead to a loss of control for human writers, who may feel that they are no longer in charge of their own work.

However, it is important to note that AI is also a powerful tool that can be used to augment human creativity and productivity. For example, AI can be used to help writers generate new ideas, find relevant information, and improve their writing style. Ultimately, the relationship between AI and human writers is likely to be one of collaboration, with AI supporting and augmenting human capabilities rather than completely replacing them.

Here are some ways that AI can be used to help human writers:

• Generating ideas: AI can be used to generate new ideas for writing projects. This can be helpful for writers who are stuck or who need help coming up with new angles.
• Finding information: AI can be used to find relevant information for writing projects. This can save writers time and effort, and it can help them to ensure that they are using accurate and up-to-date information.
• Improving writing style: AI can be used to improve writing style by suggesting changes to grammar, punctuation, and word choice. This can help writers to produce more polished and professional writing.
• Collaborating with other writers: AI can be used to collaborate with other writers on writing projects. This can be helpful for writers who need feedback or who want to work on a project with someone else.

Overall, AI is a powerful tool that can be used to help human writers in many ways. However, it is important to use AI responsibly and to be aware of the potential risks.

A.I. reminds me of this:

The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them;

and if they are to live at all, they have to live like other living creatures.

aircooled said:

Regarding the movie industry writers:  One of the big issue they have is a lot of what they produce (may not be their fault) is essentially what AI does, rehash, and re-write old content / concepts.  Think of almost any sitcom (I am not sure there are any anymore, I certainly don't watch them), or some of that Netflix content, they absolutely full of formulaic writing.  The same could be said for many movies.  Why pay a person to do that?

One of my fears is that - getting good at something typically requires a lot of time spent being really mediocre at something, and that AI will remove the opportunity for that experience. 

In reply to Beer Baron :

Yeah, certainly a good point.  If nothing else is speaks to the need of some protection, which I am sure they will eventually get, I just wonder how much is appropriate (other than simple job protection that is).

In a way, it's a bit like the dock workers in the port of LA not allowing automation, because it would cost jobs (but be cheaper and quicker).  In that case though, there is no risk of losing the skills needed as a basis of the automation going into the future.

The sports writing is likely a good analogy though.  You could certain get all the stats and info with AI, but could seriously loose the "soul", which historically has been rather noticeable in sports writing (at least in the good versions).

It'll almost be sad to see AI actually get good.

May I present... women excited about pumpkin spice...

Beer Baron said:

 

As a joke, we've had AI write bad, pretentious, overly wordy descriptions for IPA. It does a really good job with long, pretentious, meaningless, buzz-word-salad.

Because not even AI can be made to say anything good about IPA's

I once had AI generate art for the side of a van.  

The results where largely inappropriate but this is an activity it is good at.

I personally would of never thought of a 3 legged, two tailed, vertically stacked multiple jawed Dinosaur but think that's way better then jaws that open in quarters or thirds that are popular in monster movies lately.

Beer Baron said:

I'm saying it will produce content, not Art.

That's really dependent on both the definitions used by each individual interpreting it, as well as whether or not they even care enough to differentiate between the two.

Driven5 said:

Beer Baron said:

I'm saying it will produce content, not Art.

That's really dependent on both the definitions used by each individual interpreting it, as well as whether or not they even care enough to differentiate between the two.

That's my point. Many people don't care enough to differentiate the two. Especially heads of media companies.

In reply to Beer Baron :

I'm not even sure that I have a good way to differentiate between content and art though. I've seen a LOT of human generated 'art' that is simply content to me. I've been seeing a more and more AI generated 'content' that could just as easily be argued meets any definition of 'art' that I can come up with... And that's not even getting into the nuanced spectrum of humans working with AI to crate the content/art. Even among human creators, art that is not ultimately derivative is exceptionally rare.

Beer Baron said:

In reply to SV reX :

I'm saying it will produce content, not Art.

I totally agree.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers want to buy content, and don't give a E36 M3 about art.

In reply to Beer Baron :

There is something AI CAN do that very closely resembles art.

It can replicate an artist's style, and their eye for art.

My DiL is a high end photographer. Weddings, Smithsonian magazine, etc. Part of what makes her fantastic is she is exceptionally good at editing her pictures. The lighting, tints, color tones, cropping, etc... it's all a big part of the art.  And her editing has a particular style which is unique to her.  It takes many, many hours after every shoot- about 4 times as much time as the actual photo shoot.

She recently started using an AI editing program. That program basically watches how she edits, and does it in a similar manner. 
 

So, she batch loads several hundred pictures into the program after the shoot, and presses the "Go" button.  She was absolutely thrilled with the results. She said she literally couldn't distinguish the work from her own.  Now she uses it on a regular basis.

She's  still the artist.  At least she takes the shots. But she doesn't do much editing any more- that's done by the machine. 
 

Basically, there is now a machine out there which can replicate her work.  It doesn't follow a script or a pattern of the "right" way, it does the artistic work she once did. It learned her.

 Sadly, if she was a collaborative artist who took the photos and worked with a different artist who did the editing, that guy would now be out of a job. 
 

Yes, the AI is still not creating. It's mimicking. But it is mimicking a specific artist in the very specific ways that the artist creates, which is basically indistinguishable from the "real" art.
 

Actually, it has become the real art. 

In reply to SV reX :

That's an extreme example of using a Photoshop filter. Filters have made it easy to duplicate specific looks and processes for some time. This one is just easier to set up and a little more sophisticated in terms of taking content into consideration (ie, cropping and coloring decisions). Your DiL defined her style so well and consistently that it's just a production line job now. 

The real art was in developing the style.

Driven5 said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

I'm not even sure that I have a good way to differentiate between content and art though. I've seen a LOT of human generated 'art' that is simply content to me. I've been seeing a more and more AI generated 'content' that could just as easily be argued meets any definition of 'art' that I can come up with... And that's not even getting into the nuanced spectrum of humans working with AI to crate the content/art. Even among human creators, art that is not ultimately derivative is exceptionally rare.

Much of what humans make is just content. A lot of art is bad art. But humans still have a capacity for art.

To me - art is about expression. It conveys feeling or emotion. AI algorithms are incapable of intention. They have nothing to express.

They can make pretty pictures. But I've never seen anything generated by AI that actually expressed anything.

AI can mimick, but it can't create. AI can create an image that looks like Picasso, but it can't express the emotion of 'Guernica'.

AI absolutely can be used as a tool in the creation of art. Editing and finishing are great uses for AI. I chatted with someone who mentioned that he starts by sketching the outlines of what he wants, and uses AI to colorize and shade his work, because he can't color anywhere near as well as AI. This makes a lot of sense to me. The art is still created by a human, AI just edits and polishes.

But it takes more than just putting in a prompt to be created by a person.

I'll go back to the Pulp Fiction coffee scene as an example. No prompt would be able to get AI to write that scene. You could tell AI to write a scene where gangsters are standing in a kitchen drinking coffee. It would write a scene of them talking about how good the coffee is.

...but that scene is *not* about how good the coffee is. It's about Jules trying to kiss his friends ass to smooth over the giant problem he's dropped in his lap, so he's talking bullE36 M3 about the coffee but his friend doesn't give a E36 M3. Then Winston Wolf comes in, and we're offhandedly seeing how self confident and genuinely in control he is because he asks for his coffee with "A lotta cream, lotta sugar..." and just nods at the cup and raises it in recognition of how good it is instead of sucking up about how it's "Serious gourmet E36 M3."

AI can't do subtext.

Just ran across an article on this topic. It turns out that this is mainly due to a company called Lede AI that started offering cheap & easy AI sports writing services, and the AI seems to have little variance in its bizarre writing style, using the same awkward metaphors at every opportunity:

https://futurism.com/usa-today-newspapers-ai-generated-sports-stories

From today's headlines:

An AI singer has become the first creation of its kind to secure a major record deal. The virtual entity named Noonoouri has officially released a debut single after signing with industry giant Warner Music.

AI-powered rapper FN Meka signed a record deal with Capitol Records, becoming the first digital artist to sign with a major label.

Beer Baron said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I'm aware of that case. That's something that can and certainly will get fixed, much like AI not being able to draw hands.

And I agree that you will still need a lawyer who understands things to make sure it works. That's why AI won't replace lawyers. It will replace the menial tasks that support lawyers.

I'm not sure if improving large language models can fix the sort of problem that brief had. A LLM can create something that looks like other legal briefs. But it has non capacity to sift through actual cases to cite. It just knows that legal briefs end in a block of text in a certain format. So it draws up something with the same format as a block of citations, but doesn't, and can't ​​​​​​, verify that they even exist.

A program that can look through a file of case decision and see if they support a case is an entirely different algorithm.