Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The stories, novels and dialogs of the future is going to very boring and colourless.


The majority of them, yes, but it has always been so. What we actually care about is the tiny fraction of great works (by those novels, video games, movies), and in the future the best of the best will still be as good, because why would AI change that. If we stay where we are, that tiny percentage will be crafted by human geniuses (as it always has been), if something groundbreaking happens to AI, then maybe not.


> because why would AI change that

Why wouldn’t AI change it? Everyone is expecting that it will, and it’s already starting to happen, just visit Amazon. The biggest reasons are that low-effort AI produced works by lazy authors & publishers may drown out the great works and make the tiny percentage far tinier and much harder to find, which may prevent many great works from ever being “discovered” and recognized as great. The new ability for many people without skill to use AI produce works that compete with skilled manual creation is a huge disincentive for creators to spend their lives studying and honing their skills. I’d bet there’s a hollowing out of the arts already occurring in universities globally. My interaction with college students over the last couple of years has very suddenly and dramatically turned into discussions about AI and concern about whether there will even be jobs for the subjects they’re studying.


Amazon has always been chock-full of ghostwritten amazon turked books, which were hot garbage easily on the level of chatgpt 3.5. The advent of AI won't change the cesspit of useless despair, because it's already so full you can't wade through all of it. Having more shit in a pit full of shit doesn't make it more shitty, especially if you had to wade through it to find a single pebble.


Sure it does. The ratio of good to bad absolutely matters. It determines the amount of effort required, and determines the statistical likelihood that something will be found and escape the pit. People are still writing actual books despite the ghostwritten garbage heap. If that ratio changes to be 10x or 100x or 1000x worse than it is today, it still looks like a majority garbage pile to the consumer, yes, but to creators it’s a meaningful 10, 100 or 1000x reduction in sales for the people who aren’t ghostwriting. AI will soon, if it doesn’t already, produce higher quality content than the “turked” stuff. And AI can produce ad-infinitum at even lower cost than mechanical turk. This could mean the difference between having any market for real writers, and it becoming infeasible.


What percentage of these great works have been downed out by the noise, never given serious attention, and been lost to time? Because that percentage is about to go way up.


Enough loud noise for long enough and I don't even hear it. Millennials never fell for the bs our parents and grandparents did online - we saw thru that shit as children and became the resident experts for all things tech bc of it.

I was the oldest millennial in my extended family that lived nearby, so I setup all my older family members internet - account, router & wifi, emails and FBs before I went to college. I'll bet some of those passwords are the same.

Gen Alpha should be able to be similar to that with us Millennials and AI - they will grow up with it, learn it, they will think about AI in prompts - not have to create prompts out of what they want (that's tough to explain) They will learn how to interact with AI as a friendly tool and won't have our hangups - specifically the ones regarding if they are awake or not, Gen Alpha will not care.

They will totally embrace AI without concern of privacy or the Terminator. Considering AI is about a toddler level the two will likely compete in many ways - the AI to show the ads and the kids to circumvent them as a basic example.

tldr: I think Gen Alpha ought to be able to just see AI content - there will be tells and those kids will kno them. So human content online especially the good stuff, but really all the many niches of it, should be all right in the future - even if good AI content is everywhere.

Wow, I rewrote this twice, sorry for the book - you mentioned something I've been thinking about recently and I obviously had way too much to say.


>They will totally embrace AI without concern of privacy or the Terminator.

Exactly, which is why SkyNet won't send the terminators after us for a few decades, when Gen Alpha has forgotten about the movies and decided to trust the machines.


One way AI may change that is by cutting entry-level creative jobs. If you can’t get a foot in, you don’t start your career.


Or the role of the script doctor will become the new hot spot. Someone comes up with a script that's not good but has a good idea gets sent to someone else to take the good idea and rewrite around that. This is pretty much just par for the course in development.


I think, in your scenario, the initial "bland script author" is adding nothing of value. You'll get more quality quicker by writing it from scratch.


I think you're missing the point, or you're grossly overvaluing the quality of "from scratch" scripts that are made. There are some very bad scripts out there that have been made it all the way to being a very bad movie that I've watched. So many "straight to [VHS|DVD|Home Video|Streaming]" scripts that somebody green lit. Just imagine how many more were written/read and not approved.


I don't think it matters much either way. There's been lots of movies made with "from scratch" scripts that were excellent (and a lot of stinkers too obviously), but there's also been plenty of big-budget Hollywood blockbusters with absolutely terrible scripts, when there should have been more cross-checking. Just look at the last few "Alien" movies, especially Prometheus.


There have been at least two film what went from inception all the way to film and then straight to the rubbish bin without any outsider seeing it.


I want to call it iterative narrative design.

This is basically what many authors do anyway. They write something. Read it at a later time and then rewrite it.


Or their editors do. I think there was important learning in going over the editor's liberal use of the red pen. I have a feeling this is something lost on the newer generations, and no, I'm not talking about Word's red squiggle.

Now, it's just append to the prompt until you get something you like. The brutality of all of that red ink is just gone




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: