
I, Language Robot - prostoalex
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/i-language-robot/
======
whatshisface
For a long time I have been bothered that some intellectuals get so much
respect for stringing together eloquent baloney that sounds very smart but
doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The trick works because close scrutiny is
an extremely rare thing. I hope that these computer programs will put the
human art of baloney stringing out of business.

~~~
knolax
More likely the computer programs will do their own baloney stringing which
will then be marketed as objective (our proprietary algorithm is 110%
objective) to the masses.

------
Jun8
"The greatest potential loss in our relations to machines is not runaway GDP
or disinformation, but rather the existential right to enjoy the surprise and
uniqueness of human effort." This is similar to the "Artist's Lament"
described eloquently by Feynman
([https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184384-i-have-a-friend-
who-...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/184384-i-have-a-friend-who-s-an-
artist-and-has-sometimes)).

Actually, it would be _very_ interesting to read fiction created by an AI that
illustrates what it means to be a machine, similar to how we are recommended
to read works written by people from other cultures. Note that the AI does
_not_ do this: as the article states it's trained on "more than 40 gigabytes
of online writing", so it's just holding a mirror to what humans have written
with no insight into "machine-ness". This is is like picking up a Chinese
writer and finding out that it's a story about the Midwest, written in the
style of American storytellers. It may be even called cultural appropriation
(see different writer's viewpoints on cultural appropriation:
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/01/novelists-
cult...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/01/novelists-cultural-
appropriation-literature-lionel-shriver) and Zadie Smith's eloquent push bak
against it: [https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/24/zadie-smith-
in-d...](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/10/24/zadie-smith-in-defense-
of-fiction/)). OTOH, if the AI's fiction is truly authentic we may not be able
to understand it a la Wittgenstein's lion
([https://wittgensteinforum.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/wittgenst...](https://wittgensteinforum.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/wittgenstein-
if-a-lion-could-speak-we-could-not-understand-him-pi-p223/)) because it will
be far removed from human experience.

Why do we read fiction, though? If the answer is for it to be "an axe for the
frozen sea within us" ([https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/237620-i-think-we-
ought-to-...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/237620-i-think-we-ought-to-
read-only-the-kind-of)) then we don't care who generates it: if an AI has
created a story that moves you, so be it.

~~~
lonelappde
Lem's Solaris is (among other things) a literary take on Wittgenstein's lion,
might be an easier and more fun read. (I hear the George Clooney vehicle movie
is actually good too, but different from the book.)

Regarding your Chinese Midwesterner lit, we do have the huge genre of Serge
Leone and the Italian "spaghetti westerns" (and spaghetti was invented in
China!)

Anyway, I don't want an AI remixing literary to make derivative literature. I
want AI remixing news and culture to find subtle patterns and generating
literature about that, which is what many great human writers too.

~~~
Jun8
Excellent example, thanks. I read somewhere that Lem was unhappy with both (by
Tarkovsky and Soderbergh) adaptations because they didn't put the if we
encounter aliens they will be too alien to communicate idea front and center
like he did.

I agree with your last point, that would well-suited to criticism, too, maybe
even better.

------
parvenu74
Talented authors have less to fear from AI than talented programmers have to
fear from coding boot camps that churn out thousands of entry level devs. It
sounds like the AI might be good at taking some random bits of data and
presenting it in prose which could threaten the careers of a lot of
journalists. But anywhere that abstract thought, analogy, simile, and
syllogism would be required to express concepts and ideas will remain the
domain of human authors -- forever. Machines can automate and compose passable
works based on programmed rules, but they will never be able to improvise,
crack jokes, or move the soul.

------
peter303
Dont have to worry about AI approaches used by Google in their products. Their
so-called AI has zero understanding and zero creativity.

~~~
tehsauce
I always thought that until I played with the transformer models recently.
They are becoming truely creative.

------
pixiemaster
Well, as we all know, AI will kill us all - and before that it will take our
jobs. Now true for copywriters and journalists as well ;)

