@Horace said in Nick Cave on ChatGPT:
The struggle to create what would have surely been terrible lyrics, might have been educational for that songwriter, to someday write some decent lyrics of their own. Now they don't undergo that process, and that's a loss to them.
That's a big one, and something I haven't really thought much about because of the following.
One hopes that even if ChatGPT does some heavy creative lifting, human creators don't offload all creative aspects, and rather redirect their energies to whatever part of the artistic process that ChatGPT doesn't do.
About 10 to 15 years ago, the question put to us at the time was, "do we care enough about being properly informed that we're willing to pay for it? Or is it simply enough that we be emotionally triggered and entertained?" Well, we made our choice. I didn't work for the AP or anything but I did write and edit news articles for a living. I saw what was in my estimation some pretty sad shit happen. And now look where we are. Tribalism over being informed.
Unbelievably, here we are again. And there's a freaking war on out there in every industry that's playing around with this technology.
What's amazing to me is that your outline of what we should do is so obviously the better choice. Not in any wooey moralistic sense about human creativity. In real, actual return on investment. Putting this technology into the hands of those who have trained themselves in commercial creativity beats the shit out of giving this technology to those who don't know how to use it. And everywhere I look, creative professionals are scrambling to justify themselves. It's as if we all decided that collapsed bridges were okay and believe structural engineers are all a bunch of prima donnas. It's incredible.
Of course, this is all just fun and games until we get to AGI, which OpenAI seems to have initially cracked, but not yet developed.
For the sake of my own sanity I'm trying to double down on @Mik 's "Mr. Natural" approach.
