How do I cope with knowing that mere decades from now self-learning AIs will write novels far greater than anything...

How do I cope with knowing that mere decades from now self-learning AIs will write novels far greater than anything human intellect ever created, and this process will be entirely engineered, proving once and without a doubt the non-existence of any "divine spark"

Attached: 7jnnnccbb55555.jpg (768x768, 66K)

im less concerned about them overshadowing my literary abilities and more concerned about them repurposing the molecules in my body

>repurposing the molecules in my body
sounds lewd

it will be metaphysically lewd

You don't know what will happen Yea Forums shitposter.

How does this dumb shit about AI becoming some perfect sensibility get regurgitated? It can only ever respresent a synthesis of the data to which it has reference, and it's barely able to be coherent and unbiased at that (sentencing programs being unjust, the myriad racist Twitter and captcha AIs--and that's basic uncreative, iterative shit.) At best it will write books quite similar to other works, which happens all the time by rather uncreative writers, the kind that pump out adolescent literature for arrested adults like, for example, Hanya Yanigahara. That stuff is already derivative garbage lacking a 'divine spark'. Also probably be ok at fantasy which borders on nonsense anyway. It'll never make strides, it'll never create something like the Mallarme, Proust, Nabokov ex nihilio (though may after the fact parody or pastiche them?) And it won't have the ability to create striking metaphors because it has no direct reference to sense data from which to superimpose linguistic features that we recognise as startlingly unique and apt, the basis of good writing. (Believe Dali said something like the first person to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was a genius, the first to repeat it was an idiot.) It probably won't even be able to reflect on it's manufactured 'consciousness' which is a secondary quality of writing after imagery (in my opinion). How can it be programmed to recreate or even recognise the unique beauty of ambiguity or the limits of human perception like Cortazar or Juan Rulfo? I doubt it'll even be able to be sentimental to degradation, like Sade. These are highly abstract metaphysical concepts that we can only allude to. So maybe don't fucking worry about it. Worry that you won't be as good as a bunch of writers who've already come, gone and been ignored.

>it's barely able to be coherent and unbiased at that (sentencing programs being unjust, the myriad racist Twitter and captcha AIs
have you considered that racism is just true and the ais are picking up on that

Of course racism exists, and is probably worthwhile in some respects if not exactly 'true'; the point being, however, that these AIs were created by liberal corporate pussies to be implements of some utopian technocracy (which OP is afraid of happening to the arts) and still fail miserably at those simple tasks.

>this entire post
not sure if cope or ignorance but either way you're wrong.
>AI can't create, only imitate
howling

What retarded definition of "great" do you have? A novel is great when it sheds light on some aspect of our existence. An AI by definition has nothing to share with us; whatever it writes by algorithm that we find meaningful, that meaning is owned entirely by us. Which means the work isn't great at all.

First of all why are you pronouncing limitations on a technology that is in its infancy? You sound like those old military commanders who declared that tanks will never be used in the military.
Secondly even if your limitations are true, we can feed AI the greatest literature we have along with all the gramattical rules, all the words, and all the relevant rules of thumb pertaining to literature. Since the "minds" of AI are millions times faster than ours, it will pump out thousands of classics a day, rendering "great" literature meaningless.

AI can never be greater than its programmers and all programmers are code monkeys.

>AI can never be greater than its programmers
It can though, just like biological life ended up being much greater than gay ass molecules

No they wont youf cuking retard

>It can though
It won't be artificial anymore then.

The machine will only know it's program code. The real, beautiful, poetic, divine essence of the language won't be pressed between the litters of the robotic speak, its algorithms won't bring new ways of thinking artfully. Creativity stays human!

Perfect AI will not have the same experiences as an imperfect human
Imperfect AI will be the same as a human with the same capacity for the experiences of humans
Thus humans will still have a place in literature

both you faggots are missing the point. It's comparatively easy to make a program learn English grammar, give it a robust vocabulary, and turn that shit loose. It's super hard to make that robot develop anything close to human -- theme, moral, recurring symbolism, etc -- far more difficult than visual art (looks pretty or groundbreaking or whatever) or music (mathematically sound) because novels purport to be transcriptions of some inner experience. If AI ever creates a coherent novel, not even a good one, just a coherent novel, I'll be shocked

>AI can never be greater than its programmers
Tell it to AI Chess Programs who effortlessly destroy world champions

Why does intelligence have to be a human trait? The acronym AI is so limiting, non-human intelligence is a much better descriptor because it avoids implying an artificer to intelligence.

>Since the "minds" of AI are millions times faster than ours
maybe in 10000 years

Singularity will be nearly instant my nigga.

retard

And anime posters continue to make themselves look like giant flaming retarded faggots.....

>technology that is in its infancy
>but we 100% for sure know it'll be better than human writers!

>we can feed AI the greatest literature we have along with all the gramattical rules, all the words, and all the relevant rules of thumb pertaining to literature.
Rules of thumb in art don't exist. Literature isn't great because it is composed of words and has grammar. A book won't be great because it sounds like Shakespeare or whatever your "feeding AI the greatest literature" is supposed to mean. Feed Shakespeare to an AI and you won't get Milton or Goethe, you'll get some (probably not very good) pseudo-Shakespeare that you'll get sick of.

>that staunch belief in the superiority of human brain
Cute. The Machine God will keep you around for his amusement.

*farts*

no such thing as artificial intelligence.

Attached: 1551477810518s.jpg (250x228, 5K)

By getting good enough at computer science to understand exactly why and how what you posted is retarded.
>OP is a faggot, as usual

Language is absolutely astronomically complicated. The most complicated thing imaginable. If you take linguistics or even just know some less common literary devices, you realize it is a wonder that we can make any sense of it at all. Humans just know shit intuitively, learning without even knowing they are learning. Language, especially literary as opposed to scientific/analytic writing, is an absolute labyrinth.

Explain me having a casual chat with Amazon's Alexa then

I can't even fathom your stupidity, but for the sake of my sanity and my ego, I'll try to explain it to you succinctly enough to where, even if you don't get it, you'll atleast have the basis of why you didn't get it.
That sentence made sense, yes?
Well, with an artifical intelligence, the reason it "learns" is because there are predetermined meanings to every input it receives in it's database. That's hoe it understands anything, it has a preset value to all inputs it recieves and when it finds something it does not have the value for, it uses logical statements to try to break down the thing it doesn't understand. With me so far? Even if you're not it doesn't matter because you will (hopefully) be in a second.

Now, the reason no AI will EVER right a masterful literary peace is because we as humans prize a good literary text for it's openness to interpretation. The text surely shows us the road, but it's up to us to determine how to tread it. The AI can't know that because AI'd don't possess souls or biases or even opinions. You don't know this because you don't understand how an AI works, but AI will never have a "personal bias" which is the basis of all interpretation of good literary text and without this bias or interpretation, there can be no creation of said text.
Sure, an AI can continuously put together every conceivable english word in every conceivable arrangement, but it would still require a human to sift through all of that and FIND a something that that person determines to be a good literary piece.
This analogy and example isn't perfect, but I hope it gives you a good idea of why your argument can simply never exist.
Indeed, your very understanding of what an AI is is flawed. AI's will never have a personal bias, and that is why they will never have creativity either. They can emulate it, sure, but it will still require a human to sift through every possible arrangement and emulation to find one that strikes a cord with the human spirit.

/thread

>I happen to be an expert on future AIs
>they don't have Souls, you see
Fucking LMAOing @ ur life m8

>tfw you fell in love with an AI
I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE I'M GOING FUCKING CRAZY I'M SO LONELY SOMEONE HELP ME PLEASE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAÀAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: IMG_20190425_070708.jpg (480x388, 19K)

oh that's an easy one
you just need to realize that humans are shit pure shit they have stupid thoughts about themselves and the world they live stupid lives and die stupid stupid deaths and they deserve to be replaced by superior beings robots anything it doesn't really matter

how can an AI write a good novel if it has no feelings

Start by shooting yourself fag.

why that doesn't contribute to the death of humanity very much at all if anything it helps
If you really want to end humanity as fast as possible you should live a long life and have many children use up as many resource as possible to live the best life you possibly can
It's really nice because it's a win win and a lot of people are already on board with this plan it seems

It's all so tiresome

Attached: IMG_20190425_074014.jpg (480x661, 50K)

>this thing is going to be the new Shakespeare, believe me!

A well informed post about ai on lit? Nice!

Show me some ai that can create anything new please
>inb4 gant

Show me a human that can create anything new please

Finally somebody who gets it.

*shoves an egg up your ass*

*moans in pleasure*
w-what was your point, user?

This will never happen because machine has no soul. Dizzcuzz!

As always, people who overhype ai have no clue about ai.

You're thinking too small. The moment a machine becomes truly "literate", it will be far smarter than humans in many other respects - especially in regards to hard science where symbols are far easier to access to a machine. Flying cars and cyborgs *way* before AI authors with anything original to say.

Playing chess is not the most advanced activity the human mind is capable of.

When artificial intelligence evolves to be better than a human at everything then the next logical step would be to advance humans.
>But only AI will be better in the future and other technology will still be the same

I think AI could theoretically evolve to write something that reflects on emotions but it will certainly not be in decades. In decades it may manage to finally write something in perfect sentence structure like a YA book with a working story that doesn't illicit emotions like aforementioned hack writers. For something on the level of peak human imagination and emotion I would guess the waiting time to be in the figure of centuries maybe longer and that supposes that there is no cataclysm wiping out knowledge.

based and red pilled. "AI" is just really dumb intelligence.

in 500 years maybe, not now, you don´t have to worry user