"It is not that AI can't help already-good creators be more creative. It is that it will also elevate lots of people who aren't particularly good at creating. Such people would not even have tried writing before AI. They’re now positioned to pump out mass quantities of mediocre sludge, greatly increasing the "noise-to-signal" ratio in the wrong direction for the people who are talented writers, yet struggling to stand out. Vicki Kundle, (a fellow Substack creator) read my initial reaction to McKenzie’s post and wrote my comment matched her experience.
“…Sadly, you are spot on. I'm ashamed to admit this, but since AI has allowed anybody and their dog to write a novel, and publish it on Amazon, I have stopped reading new authors. I used to love to explore authors I had never read before or who were new to the industry. But now it seems as if any new author I read has turned out a crap novel--most likely generated by AI. I just don't have the time to suss out the horrible content from the good content. Hence, I now only read novelists whom I have read in the past, and know they turn out quality products. This is really sad, and as a creative myself, I do feel bad about not reading new authors anymore. Before AI, I would get the occasional poorly written novel. Now, it seems as if every new author I read has cranked out less-than-stellar work.”
Even before the advent of the internet, there were always talented writers who never got the attention or sales they deserved. They were unlucky enough not to be at the right place at the right time. Perhaps their work did not fit the demographic niche for the target audience or the politically appropriate identity for being a creator (see the kerfuffle over America Dirt if you don’t get this reference). "
I'm reminded of how people were scared of the Gutenberg explosion of content. So much material appeared: pamphlets, translations, books, articles of all kinds. Europeans freaked out - check out the scene in The Fairie Queen when a dragon vomits printed materials all over our hero.
So we responded in all kinds of ways. The Encyclopedia was one. New ways of formatting print, like marginal annotations.
What I'm watching for now are the modern equivalents.
Brilliant twist there, Bryan. Medium as message was last revolution. There is an organic internal, even spiritual vector to this evolution of didactic tools that we are homing in on.
IBM's tool comes from data governance, which includes data discovery and cataloging and workflow automation, not just charting/dashboards/reporting.
https://www.ibm.com/topics/data-governance
That's much more powerful. Thank you!
"It is not that AI can't help already-good creators be more creative. It is that it will also elevate lots of people who aren't particularly good at creating. Such people would not even have tried writing before AI. They’re now positioned to pump out mass quantities of mediocre sludge, greatly increasing the "noise-to-signal" ratio in the wrong direction for the people who are talented writers, yet struggling to stand out. Vicki Kundle, (a fellow Substack creator) read my initial reaction to McKenzie’s post and wrote my comment matched her experience.
“…Sadly, you are spot on. I'm ashamed to admit this, but since AI has allowed anybody and their dog to write a novel, and publish it on Amazon, I have stopped reading new authors. I used to love to explore authors I had never read before or who were new to the industry. But now it seems as if any new author I read has turned out a crap novel--most likely generated by AI. I just don't have the time to suss out the horrible content from the good content. Hence, I now only read novelists whom I have read in the past, and know they turn out quality products. This is really sad, and as a creative myself, I do feel bad about not reading new authors anymore. Before AI, I would get the occasional poorly written novel. Now, it seems as if every new author I read has cranked out less-than-stellar work.”
Even before the advent of the internet, there were always talented writers who never got the attention or sales they deserved. They were unlucky enough not to be at the right place at the right time. Perhaps their work did not fit the demographic niche for the target audience or the politically appropriate identity for being a creator (see the kerfuffle over America Dirt if you don’t get this reference). "
https://technoskeptic.substack.com/p/is-ai-an-opportunity-for-writers
I'm reminded of how people were scared of the Gutenberg explosion of content. So much material appeared: pamphlets, translations, books, articles of all kinds. Europeans freaked out - check out the scene in The Fairie Queen when a dragon vomits printed materials all over our hero.
So we responded in all kinds of ways. The Encyclopedia was one. New ways of formatting print, like marginal annotations.
What I'm watching for now are the modern equivalents.
Brilliant twist there, Bryan. Medium as message was last revolution. There is an organic internal, even spiritual vector to this evolution of didactic tools that we are homing in on.
Yes - if we go through the cycle again.
I'm concerned we might not.
1) The Gutenberg Parenthesis argument - print was an exception to history, and we've leaving it now for a return to oral and visual media.
2) Anti-intellectualism today might become too strong - cf the New Dark Age idea.
Excellent info there. Some other interesting links and observations of relevance...
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-ted-ai-conference
https://thealgorithmicbridge.substack.com/p/how-to-survive-as-a-human-creator
Thank you for those links, Sifu.