10/ My initial comment is basically "this will not generate more high quality art, and we already have a near infinite supply of low quality art". I stand by that. >>>
-
Show this thread
-
11/ > You're a sci-fi artist and this is your take? This is like barley scratching the surface of how weird shit is gonna get, who said I didn't predict this? Who said I don't think the world will get weird yet? This is an obvious development, we've assumed AI for decades.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
12/ > better learn to adapt. Who said that I was upset re my own career? This tool will just let people who can't write at all write like Brometheus, and will let Brometheus write like someone who is worthy of getting rejected by Baen. This doesn't hurt me.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
13/ > People literally thought women reading novels was going to cause all sorts of problems, ' They were right. https://twitter.com/CyberneticMelon/status/1314573383934377984 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted
14/ > These tools could help more people enter the space, not less. Exactly! Democratization is bad. https://twitter.com/CyberneticMelon/status/1314573787506126849 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
This Tweet is unavailable.2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
15/ well, I'm 90% shitpoasting... RT
@mr_archenemy > Democratization is bad. if by this you mean "lowering the cost of entry", i disagree (which i think this is very different than this AI tool ridiculousness, about which i do agree you).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
16/ Let me rephrase: - quality follows a power law - there are arbitrary cut-off points. Publishing Inc. used to cut off the bottom 95%. Ability to focus and stick words together currently cuts off the bottom 50%. - lowering cost of entry is good - effective search is too
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
17/ Barriers to entry impacts search quality. All barriers to entry have both false positives and false negatives. High barriers to entry have tons of false negatives (good books excluded). Low barriers to entry reduce false negatives and create false positives. >>>
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
18/ By which I mean, if you picked a random SF book off the shelf in 1990, 90% would have been good, 1% bad. If you pick a random SF book off of kindle today, 90% are bad. GPT tools that allow more creation will make this worse. 99% will be bad.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MorlockP
sure, yes. but posit a group which we will discard the bottom 95% of. who / how many people should be in this group initially? who knows, but lower barriers to entry will give us a better group, i think. maybe we'll need to discard the bottom 98%, but still...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
the deeper you scrape the bottom of the barrel, the higher the percent of garbage but, yes, I acknowledge that there are PERHAPS some gems down there so the deeper you scrape, the better your filtering tech needs to be /shrug the end
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.