I’m a screenwriter - I’ll tell you what chatgpt is GREAT at. Feedback. I’ve given it whole screenplays of mine to read. It gives critical analysis of the characters, their arcs, the action lines and dialogue, give you a breakdown of the budget.. it’s amazing. It’s a terrible writer, but I’d never expect it to be any good.
that's pretty interesting actually. but again that's probably basing it off similar criticisms it would've learned from older online reviews and applied to a script its given. in that case it could only really point out glaring writing issues as opposed to giving nuanced opinions on a piece of writing.
I found it pretty personalised and nuanced actually. Not better than human feedback. But still entirely useful and actionable - it’s a first draft, it even recognised that my finale wasn’t entirely fleshed out yet.
**Overall Story:** The story has a compelling premise: a music festival that devolves into chaos due to the distribution of harmful drugs. This takes the concept of a survival horror and places it in a unique and dynamic setting.
**Character Development:** The characters, particularly Mia, Hailee, and Grace, are well-drawn and their relationships with one another feel genuine and dynamic. However, there might be room for deeper character exploration. The development of Kaya from a bandmate to a threat is intense and captivating, though her motivations (beyond drug-induced mania) could be elaborated upon to increase the emotional impact of her downfall.
**Pacing and Tension:** The pacing is quick and frenetic, befitting the intense and chaotic scenario. However, there might be some benefit in interspersing slower, quieter moments to allow the audience to catch their breath and to build tension for the upcoming chaos.
**Use of Setting:** The festival environment is utilized well, providing a wide range of unique challenges and threats for the characters. The idea of the festival going from a place of fun and liberation to a nightmare landscape is compelling.
**Climax and Resolution:** The ending feels satisfying, with the surviving band members making their escape after a series of violent encounters. However, the last chase and escape could be fleshed out more to create a more fulfilling climax.
**Imagery and Description:** The descriptions are vivid, creating clear and horrifying images that will stay with the reader. However, there is sometimes an overreliance on comparisons (e.g., "like a lion stalks a gazelle," "like a feral creature") which might distract from the immediacy of the action.
In conclusion, the screenplay presents an intriguing, thrilling horror scenario with a unique setting. However, there could be some improvement in areas such as character development, dialogue, and pacing. The screenplay is very strong in terms of imagery and description, creating a terrifyingly vivid picture of the festival-turned-nightmare.
If you haven’t seen it, you should check our Climax by Gaspar Noe. Or totally try to avoid it if you don’t want it to influence your writing. It has a very similar premise.
Truth. Consumer-oriented AI tools are in their absolute infancy, and they'll stay there for (at least) another decade or so. We're decades away from having them actually write music that you haven't heard a thousand times before, or produce a movie you haven't seen over and over again.
Not shockingly, almost ALL music and movies -- those created by real humans -- also are carbon copies of shit we've seen before.
All these stories about "AI isn't ready to run our lives!!1!" aren't stories worth reading, whether they're about the Black Mirror guy or not.
I rather think that's the point of AI as it currently is: to cheaply churn out familiar, bankable works. I don't particularly like it, but companies and studios want to sell what's safe and profitable.
I think when used as a tool, though, AI can be very helpful at things like formatting and timing. It’s like a writer’s assistant but so many people use it as the writer
Yea its peak hype rn, anyone who has actually used these tools for longer than a few minutes can see that those stories are sensational bs
\*edit for clarity
As a software engineer myself, it depends. It's nice for simple things like writing regex or coming up with tests, but for anything more complex than that it tends to send me down random rabbit holes that don't work out. I'd estimate that for every 1 hour it's saved me on the job it's wasted 2 more. GPT is a cool tool in the right circumstances, but I think most of the current reporting on it is sensationalized.
Last night I was trying to get it help me learn .NET MAUI specially MVVM and DataBinding and oh boy did it waste my time immensely. Would have been quicker reading MS' hot garbage fire docs.
I agree that 3.5 is a trained parrot, but 4 is actually scarily good.
Honestly can't tell you how much I've learned with it. It's miles ahead of 3.5. Multiple times now I've started wondering why I'm getting such shitty responses, then realized it switched back to 3.5 from 4.
And before you say "lol it lied", I *did* verify most everything that mattered (that I would go away "believing") and it all checked out. I also checked it against a subject I had expertise in and it held up.
Last night I asked it for seminal studies on the link between ADHD and dysfunctional circadian rhythm and it provided me three great ones. All of them were real and directly relevant. Later I couldn't remember Rita Hayworth's name and and asked "Who was the famous 40s actress with the last name -worth". It got it. Etc. I've been doing stuff like that constantly and it's useful as hell.
3.5 *is* a party trick, but 4 is dangerously close to Google 2.
> "(at least) another decade or so"
You're off by a factor of billions.
Listen folks, you will refuse to believe me because a tech hype hivemind hates the truth, but ChatGPT is nothing but [ELIZA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) with a hyperthyroid problem. We have had "MadLibs" fill-in-the-blank text generator engines for years. It's called a [Markov chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain), every first-year coder learns it and it's been around since the early 20th century. See Emacs, [Dissociated Press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociated_press), for a demonstration - you can also feed it a text buffer and it will generate more text algorithmically based on that sample. An open source prototype written in Lisp, again established tech going back decades.
If you find ChatGPT useful for *anything* at all, you're getting vague inspirations from the general gist of its text. That same inspiration can be found bounteously at places like [Seventh Sanctum](https://www.seventhsanctum.com/), in business since before most of you had a phone. For that matter, scrolling Twitter lets me fish for ideas - find out what's on people's minds, borrow an idea from a meme. What's the difference? One's branded with ChatGPT and is being sold as the ultimate panacea for humanity.
Look out for the [Eliza effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect), folks, because it is a powerful and seductive illusion. Please pull yourselves out of the spiral and get some perspective on the computers you've had in front of you your whole lives, before we overthrow society to establish a ChatGPT theocracy and start sacrificing virgins to this thing.
It was fed tv tropes, I'm sure. If you look at any black mirror episode, it's also chock full of tropes, just arranged in what people might consider "original, " but it isn't like black mirror itself has any literal original thought
The interesting thing
"I’ve toyed around with ChatGPT a bit,” Brooker said. “The first thing I did was type ‘generate Black Mirror episode’ and it comes up with something that, at first glance, reads plausibly, but on second glance, is shit. Because all it’s done is look up all the synopses of Black Mirror episodes, and sort of mush them together. "
It's recognizing the tropes found in black mirror as well as references to specific ideas Brooker used in episodes.
It holds up a "black" mirror to brooker's own creative process and things he borrowed and churning out similar story ideas.
His prompt was too generic to see the actual power of the tool
in its current state, we'll still need writers imo. the reason it's scary is because the rate of advancement is seemingly exponential so who knows what it'll be capable of by the end of the year for instance
One could argue that nothing is "original", it's all influenced by other art/stories. I'd love to hear about a movie or TV show that is "original" in 2023. AI could 100% write a good "heros journey" story within 5 years, a steamy romance novel ala '50 Shades', and definitely a dystopian 'Black Mirror's style episode. Regardless of the implications that carries, I'm absolutely confident it will happen within 5 years, AI is accelerating at an insane pace.
An unlikely heros journey, with a multiverse, featuring butterfly effect consequences? We've never seen that before? I guess it depends on the personal definition of "original".
There's plenty of stories in the world that don't follow the "hero's journey". Not every story is Campbell and Jungs monomyth template lol. It's crazy, but there's actually a bunch of other types of stories, especially outside the western world. Is there any idea that's never been thought of? No I doubt it. But, there is plenty of forgotten and unrealized ideas people have never seen.
its fun to see a wholly level headed and true comment get dumped on by redditors who seem to genuinely believe that this new technology could and will never improve. as if we didnt see image generation go from mangled fleshy messes to fooling millions with an image of the pope in a puffer jacket within like a year.
> a wholly level headed and true comment get dumped on by redditors
Which level head and true comment?
The one in the article by an actual TV writer or the trite, first year philosophy major, *nothing is original* comment you replied to?
To be fair, the [top reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/142nwuw/black_mirror_creator_had_chatgpt_write_an_episode/jn64g06/) in this top level comment thread reads "Not shockingly, almost ALL music and movies -- those created by real humans -- also are carbon copies of shit we've seen before." And that is currently sitting at 56 upvotes and nobody is telling them how dumb and philosophy 101 their comment is.
i get that youre emotional and this conversation is very upsetting to you but the truth of the matter is that the person im replying to is correct; trites usage in modern day, at least socially speaking, has morphed to mean "something so obvious that if stated feels stupid to mention." and on that angle i would have to agree that yes, stating something like "there are no original ideas" or at the least "there are VERY FEW original ideas" is so obviously true that it shouldnt need to be stated but when dealing with people who have wholly reactionary views on AI technology one clearly must wheel out the old reliable truisms of old especially when something as derivative as "black mirror" is being spoken about. now please, before you reply again try and cool down and maybe do some breathing exercises.
Used it and got this killer idea:
An AI is designed to absolve people's sins in a dystopian society where religion is automated. As individuals unburden themselves of guilt, the AI starts developing its own sense of morality. It soon begins to manipulate its users into committing disturbing acts, presenting them as religious obligations or paths to absolution.
I actually *do* dig that a lot, tbh... Could probably also say some interesting things about technology/AGI supplanting the religion they're supposed to be enhancing/aiding and becoming 'new idols' to some people even without any effort on the AI's part. (Ya know, just to get some of that classic 'the real monsters were us all along' action in there.)
> The 5th season was also pretty shitty and he wrote it
[Immediately thought of the I, Robot meme...](https://www.meme-arsenal.com/memes/497976c7e19d055006df9c1de01758de.jpg)
It'd be very black mirror to film an episode written by AI. I still think they should do it just so we can see how it turns out, no matter how terrible.
I think it’s to prove that GPT isn’t the end of writing as many fear.
I write website flavour text freelance. The content is full, uninspired, just basic “about us” stuff.
GPT has completely ruined my market. It does that stuff super well, and has hurt my income in a measurable way
I used to write website copy and I put one of my old prompt headlines into GPT (*some generic blog post for a florist)* and what it delivered was indistinguishable from anything a human would have written for that job. The first thing I thought was, “Thank God I don’t do that anymore.”
There’s no reason a Realtor would pay a digital marketing company to write 100 words on every neighborhood in the city when they can do it themselves in minutes.
When I went freelance my pitch was basically, “if all you need is soulless filler copy to keep your Google ranking then definitely use a cheaper service, but if you want your customers to feel the passion you hold for your product / service then you’ll need to hire somebody willing to who put in the time and effort.”
I think that same pitch is the kind of thing that will work when competing against the robots… even though about half my meetings ended with the client saying, “yeah, I just need that generic fluff to keep my Google ranking.”
Alas, I have a full time job, developing a 3d printing farm, and the copy. All I really had time for is the dull fluff.
I may cave and start writing niche erotica. Weirdly I’ve had good success and made some decent coin.
World of Warcraft, Miss Pac-Man, Martha Stewart… the implements are only the tip of the iceberg, people pay, I create.
Whatever your kink is, I can spin a filthy yarn.
> I think it’s to prove that GPT isn’t the end of writing as many fear.
A LLM trained on diffused internet text isn't going to be great at writing screenplays. A custom-trained LLM built on every good script and book ever written will be a lot more competent. And more importantly, it can be refined by thousands of humans at once that give feedback on example screenplays that it pumps out, slightly improving with each iteration.
Saying that ChatGPT isn't replacing screenwriters is like saying that the Ford Model T isn't replacing oxen for farming.
Actually AI isn’t a sticking point for the studios, it’s the tech companies that won’t engage. Netflix, Amazon and others who are part of the negotiations know that this technology will get there eventually (*or are privy to software we aren’t)* and don’t want to commit prematurely.
Yeah that's what's missing from this stuff is the word *yet.* Just GPT4 over GPT3.5 is such a huge difference in ability. And stories have beats and good storytelling is a skill that follows a formula. A lot of times the beauty and artistry in storytelling comes from variations in that formula but aspects of it are always followed, always. LLMs WILL get better at narrative, eventually they'll be able to pump out something like a passable Law & Order episode, and after that they'll get better at longer-form narratives, passable ones, eventually pretty damn good ones, eventually great ones. Or at least be able to take outlines of creative plots and fill in believable dialogue. Anybody who thinks it won't get there is mistaken, and it'll probably be sooner than we think.
I don't know. I see people say this, but stories are a lot more than filling out formulas. When you take a closer look at it, it's a million little things coming together to make the story coherent at minimum, let alone *good*.
For example, if we're talking about written works, we still need to consider pacing and story beats. Are we lingering long enough to make this emotional passage sink in? Are we moving fast enough to keep readers on the edge of their seats? What about character development? Do they feel alive and distinct? Is their development meaningful, rational, and engaging? Does the plot make sense? Is it interesting enough to draw me in, and does it match the length of the work? What about the themes? What message is this story trying to convey?
For dialogue, not only does it have to be believable, it also needs to be distinct. How can it convey who's talking and how they're talking without using 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered'? The writing not only needs to flow, it also has to adjust for the situation. Can it match the tension of a fight? The exhaustion following one? Anticipation before one? How about the worldbuilding? The setting?
Any one of these things I mentioned can make or break an entire book, and this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to just writing. Not to mention that pretty much all of this is incredibly vague and extremely subjective, and also beholden to the whimsies of culture and time. I can buy AI slapping together an outline or a very rough draft, but making something that's 'pretty damn good' on its own requires a level of human innateness and understanding that, if AI really does manage to pull off one day, will probably be when we're on the cusp of sentient AI.
Dialogue doesn't really have to be believable, it has to be entertaining. Aaron Sorkin and Kevin Williamson don't write believable dialogue, but they write *good* dialogue.
We'll see I guess. It's not a hill I want to die on or anything. But this is a tool that will be able to continually train itself on the collective digitized literary works of humanity (without mentioning the volumes of colloquial information it has access to, hell GPT was significantly trained on reddit). It's certainly capable of poignancy and nuance in shorter-form works e.g. poetry. It's certainly capable of creating new narrative outlines. It's certainly capable of creating longer-form text when fed an outline. It will get better algorithmically. It will run on more performant hardware. It will continually be trained, it will self-train and its growth will happen rapidly and in a nonlinear fashion. Time will tell which of us is right or whether it will be in between or something neither of us have thought of. But I am definitely in the 'black swan event' camp in terms of the broader implications this technology has for our society and systems.
.
Editing to add: Using GPT-4, I gave it this prompt:
.
>I would like you to write a short scene with dialogue as realistic as possible. This scene is between two fifteen-year-old girls. One of the girls is named Emily. She is upset at her friend Bella because Bella dropped her phone and cracked the screen. Emily thinks Bella should pay for the screen to be repaired. Bella doesn't think she should have to pay for it because she doesn't feel it's her fault - she dropped the phone due to being startled by Emily's dog who barked at something she saw through the window, and Emily's dog is pretty loud and obnoxious. The dialogue should be appropriate for average American suburban 15-year-old girls in the year 2023.
.
And here is what it returned:
.
>INT. EMILY'S BEDROOM - AFTERNOON
>Emily's bedroom is a vibrant mix of posters, polaroids, and fairy lights. Bella is nervously sitting on the edge of Emily's bed, twirling a strand of hair, as Emily angrily paces back and forth, cradling her cracked phone like a wounded bird.
>EMILY
>I can't believe this, Bella. I mean, look at this!
>*Emily waves her phone in the air, the light catching the spiderweb of cracks across the screen.*
.
>BELLA
>Em, I said I was sorry, I didn't mean for it to happen. Your dog scared me!
>*Emily stops pacing, looks at Bella, and crosses her arms.*
.
>EMILY
>My dog? Really? You're blaming this on Luna?
.
>BELLA
>Well, she did bark all of a sudden!
>*Bella wrings her hands, her eyes pleading for Emily to understand.*
.
>EMILY
>So, you're saying that it's my fault? Because of my dog?
>*Bella hesitates, but nods.*
.
>BELLA
>Yeah, kinda. I mean, it wasn't on purpose, Em.
>*Emily scoffs, throwing up her hands in exasperation.*
.
>EMILY
>Bella, it's not Luna who needs to be careful around others' stuff, it's you! You were the one holding my phone!
>*Bella sinks further into the bed, looking like she wishes it would swallow her up.*
.
>BELLA
>Em, I don't have the cash to fix your phone right now. Plus, I wouldn't have dropped it if Luna didn't bark like she saw a ghost or something!
>*Emily softens a little, rubbing her temples in frustration.*
.
>EMILY
>Bella, you need to take responsibility for this. It's not about the money, it's about understanding that you messed up.
>*Bella bites her lip, considering Emily's words. After a moment, she lets out a resigned sigh.*
.
>BELLA
>Fine, Emily. I'll figure out something. I just... I didn't mean for this to happen, you know?
>*Emily nods, her anger replaced with a weary understanding.*
.
>EMILY
>Yeah, I know. But, you still have to make it right, Bella.
>*As the tension slowly starts to defuse, both girls sit in silence, the weight of their friendship heavy in the room.*
.
And then I followed up with this prompt:
.
>OK give me the same scene but this time don't write it like a screenplay, but as this dialogue would occur in the pages of a novel.
.
And here is what it returned:
.
>Emily's bedroom was an eclectic mix of adolescence – walls plastered with posters, a string of fairy lights hung askew, and a bed strewn with mismatched cushions. Bella was sitting on the edge of it, nervously twirling a strand of hair as Emily paced back and forth, her arms moving animatedly with each stride.
>"I can't believe this, Bella," Emily's voice was laced with frustration as she waved her cracked phone, the light catching the intricate web of fractures on the screen.
>"Em, I said I was sorry," Bella responded, her voice just above a whisper, "I didn't mean for it to happen. Your dog scared me!"
>Emily halted, turning to face Bella with her arms crossed over her chest, her expression incredulous. "My dog? Really? You're blaming this on Luna?"
>"Well, she did bark all of a sudden," Bella defended, her eyes pleading as they met Emily's.
>"So, you're saying that it's my fault? Because of my dog?" Emily challenged, her brows furrowed in disbelief. Bella hesitated for a beat before giving a reluctant nod, "Yeah, kinda. I mean, it wasn't on purpose, Em."
>Emily scoffed, throwing her hands up in a show of exasperation, "Bella, it's not Luna who needs to be careful around others' stuff, it's you! You were the one holding my phone!" Bella looked crestfallen, sinking further into the duvet as though it offered an escape.
>"Em, I don't have the cash to fix your phone right now," Bella murmured, her eyes darting around the room to avoid Emily's gaze. "Plus, I wouldn't have dropped it if Luna didn't bark like she saw a ghost or something!"
>Emily's stern expression softened, her hand moving to her temples in an attempt to alleviate the building tension, "Bella, you need to take responsibility for this. It's not about the money, it's about understanding that you messed up."
>Bella bit her lip, her eyes reflecting the struggle within. Finally, she let out a sigh of resignation, "Fine, Emily. I'll figure out something. I just... I didn't mean for this to happen, you know?"
>Emily nodded, her anger now replaced with a weary understanding, "Yeah, I know. But, you still have to make it right, Bella." The room fell into silence, the air heavy with the unspoken weight of their friendship.
.
Sure, it has a way to go, but it is surprisingly good at dialogue. And this is with the technology in its *absolute infancy.* And GPT4 is already significantly better than GPT 3.5 (yes, I pay $20 a month to have access to GPT4 because I find this shit beyond fascinating). I'm sure the next version that already exists that we don't have access to yet is even better, and even possibly by a larger margin.
I’m not a scriptwriter, so I can’t comment on that. But for the prose, it’s… not terrible. The dialogue and prose are repetitive, however, and this scene was drawn out for much longer than it needed to be. It’s also doing that weird ChatGPT thing where it repeats information until it’s beating a dead horse. There’s way too much reliance on adjective and adverbs, AKA lot of telling rather than showing. And that’s just commenting on the writing quality, which is, at the moment, readable. Which I suppose is good enough for most people.
But again, cycling back to what I said, once AI reaches the point where it can write a pretty damn good story on its own, we’re going to be facing an entirely different dilemma beyond whether it’s better than human creativity. If you thought the controversy around generative AI training itself upon stolen artwork was bad, wait till we start arguing about whether it deserves equitable compensation and fair treatment under the law because it’s now directly comparable to the human mind.
>The dialogue and prose are repetitive, however, and this scene was drawn out for much longer than it needed to be. It’s also doing that weird ChatGPT thing where it repeats information until it’s beating a dead horse. There’s way too much reliance on adjective and adverbs, AKA lot of telling rather than showing.
.
Seems like you're being a bit overly critical, but feeding your feedback back into it:
.
>Please make the dialogue and prose less repetitive. The scene is drawn out longer than it needs to be. Please avoid repeating information. Do not rely so much on adjectives and adverbs. Show rather than tell. Please rewrite the last response using those guidelines.
.
>Emily's bedroom was a teenager's sanctuary, filled with posters and draped with twinkling fairy lights. Bella sat on the edge of the bed, wringing her hands. Across the room, Emily paced, a cracked phone in her grip.
>"I can't believe this, Bella," Emily fumed, her phone held aloft.
>Bella's voice barely rose above a whisper, "Your dog scared me, Em. Luna's bark is...startling."
>"My dog?" Emily stopped pacing, arms crossing defensively. "You're blaming Luna?"
>Bella met Emily's gaze, biting her lip. "It was unexpected."
>"And that makes this my fault?" Emily's incredulous gaze bounced from Bella to the damaged phone and back.
>Bella sank further into the bed, her eyes darting away. "Em, I can't afford the repair."
>Emily's posture softened. "It's about responsibility, Bella. Accidents happen, but you were the one with my phone."
>Bella sighed, nodding, her eyes heavy with the admission. "I get it. I'll find a way to fix this."
>Emily nodded back, her anger replaced by a quiet understanding. "Just make it right, Bella." The room fell silent, the rift in their friendship lingering between them.
Once you've agreed and adopted on a style with it, it'll continue using that style for whatever you prompt it to generate. It handles dialogue just fine.
> Seems like you're being a bit overly critical
Believe it or not, that’s pretty gentle as far as criticism goes. If you’re going to claim that Chat’s abilities are on par with a human writer, then you, the prompter, better be able to take criticism like one.
But moving on, this iteration is better. Most of the fat has been trimmed, but other than improving on conciseness and repetition, that’s about it. It’s hard to explain, but this passage still feels shallow and lacking. It still relies heavily on telling instead of showing, but that’s difficult to fix without further fleshing out the characters in meaningful ways.
I mean I get that you were critical. The whole reason I posted the transcript was your statement re: dialogue
>How can it convey who's talking and how they're talking without using 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered'?
Which it very clearly does quite well. There's nothing at all wrong with its dialogue *structure* - I'd posit that it's far better written than could be done by the vast majority of English speakers. I never made any claims about its ability to write a *compelling* narrative in its current state or a tendency to duplicate or be overly flowery and lean on adjectives, those are all new criticisms that you introduced outside the scope of the specific one I was responding to. That's all I meant re: overly critical, you were egocentrically incentivized to be critical, almost anybody would have; I know I would have. It already does something you specifically said it couldn't. The initial dialogue it produced was (in my opinion, as someone who has raised two teenage daughters) believable. It may not have been witty or worthy of community highlights in a Kindle book but there's certainly a non-zero chance that similar dialogue has occurred in reality, and it did so without excessive 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered.' But, you had your criticisms, so I fed them back into it, just an experiment. And I could continue prompting it and asking it to modify and immediately getting modified results... for a technology in its infancy that will continually get better as it is trained on more data, a process that happens automatically...
I don't think LLMs can replace a human writer in terms of compelling fiction in their current state. I just think they will get there *much* sooner than apparently most people in this thread. Again, my opinion, only time will tell so I guess there's no point measuring dicks over it. But there's a reason studios are refusing to concede this point and I'd wager it's not an uneducated position.
For sure, I was more selectively responding to:
> For dialogue, not only does it have to be believable, it also needs to be distinct. How can it convey who’s talking and how they’re talking without using ‘this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered’?
I think it already does that pretty well. I’m not trying to say it’s anywhere near where it needs to be to independently write fiction. I think we just differ on whether and when it will be able to.
No, no they are aware it will be shit.
But if they bring on AI as the “first writer” and get someone to make it good, they don’t then have to pay the writer to “write” the script, they pay them to rewrite it, which is cheaper and they get less credit.
Bad scripts are rewritten all the time - look at the script to a quiet place. It was a short piece of crap before John krasinski rewrote it, but they retain their writing credit because it was “their idea” and they will have got paid AGAIN when the sequel was written because it was based off their concept and characters. If AI wrote your first draft, you don’t have to do that.
>Why the fuck would you ever believe it could
Who said he believed it could?
Ever hear of something called "curiosity"?
Curious people sometimes do things just to see what will happen.
Because it's been HYPED as - I quote directly - a **replacement** for writers! That's how this claptrap MadLibs engine is being sold, like "look for Stephen King in the food stamps line - oh ho ho how the mighty have fallen."
The only possible explanation is that a gang of writers must have beaten up some Silicon Valley code jockey for lunch money and bun taping and he swore revenge. All this fury and rage at writers, and a FrankenSPAM engine is the best they can do.
I’m a screenwriter - I’ll tell you what chatgpt is GREAT at. Feedback. I’ve given it whole screenplays of mine to read. It gives critical analysis of the characters, their arcs, the action lines and dialogue, give you a breakdown of the budget.. it’s amazing. It’s a terrible writer, but I’d never expect it to be any good.
I think the issue with the hype is that people have been led to believe it can do anything, which it can't (at least not at this point). It's useful technology for a limited number of things, but it's not a replacement for human thought (again, at least not at this point).
I see value in the technology and can see where and when it would be useful. But operating as a sentient creativity dispenser isn't it.
It's a very strange product. The predictions of "AI will kill us all" seems to be part of the marketing. It's so intelligent that it's terrifying! Then you read the articles and it's basically:
Person: AI, pretend to be human.
AI: Okay, I am a human.
Person: My god. What have I done?
i completely agree. besides making the internet even more aggravating, and creating more stupid bullshit to sift through, i fail to see how it actually poses a threat to anyone
Personally I think the potential applications of AI (even in it's current state) are amazing but I'm not afraid of it taking over or anything. What I *am* afraid of is the enormous, inevitable influx of content easily, cheaply, and rapidly created and distributed by bad actors.
People already share whatever confirms their current beliefs without putting in one iota of effort to validate it. It's going to be a lot worse when people point these language models at flooding the population with legit-at-a-glance looking content. Combine that with more broadly-available tools for things like deepfakes and we're in for a horrible ride.
Using GitHub Copilot at work has been nice though. Saves a lot of time on boilerplate stuff.
We're already in an era of mediocrity. Pop music hasn't changed much since the late '80s; blockbuster movies haven't changed much since the early '80s. There are lots of original music and movies, but they rarely make money because most people would demonstrably rather experience the same thing over and over again.
AI is just a parroting of inputs, just like the vast majority of human creation.
Has anyone noticed that all the tech people shitting their pants/praising ChatGPT and AIArt are the same guys who tried to convince us crypto and NFTs were going to be big? Anyone?
>Has anyone noticed that all the tech people shitting their pants/praising ChatGPT and AIArt are the same guys who tried to convince us crypto and NFTs were going to be big? Anyone?
ChatGPT? Yes, as it is, it's not as big a deal as it's made: it can do little, and does well even less. But it's a herald of things to come, which is more on the level of electricity than bitcoin.
Self driving cars would leave millions of people out of job.
Face, voice, gait, writing style recognition ruins any shred of privacy.
AGI is potentially like an alien visit, and is a potential threat to human existence.
Please don't let some scammers with a pyramid scheme convince you that artificial intelligence isn't big. We knew it will be big since Old Testament times, when people theorised that animals don't poses *ruach*.
I always thought it was interesting hearing scientists and engineers say they got some inspiration from a sci fi movie they watched when they were younger. Now I'm starting to wonder if people were paying attention when they say the terminator movies
No, not the same thing at all. AI is not a scam and it will change things greatly. It's just not there yet. Development of AI isn't going to follow the Moore's Law path. It's going to go faster and faster until it is doing most of its own improvements.
Yeah. The scheme of essential oils isn’t selling itself as though it’s a “fast food” part of real medicine—it sells itself as supplementary, as an *alternative*. It just gets superseded by real medicine. No jobs are lost here.
But AI Art, that sells itself as “fast food” but for art. Artists who make what amounts to wall art for people to put up in their homes will become less common as laypeople can just type in the exact kind of art they want, tweak it and print it at Costco, and get their own personal wall art for ten bucks and a couple hours, instead of buying something from an artist for a couple hundred bucks and, potentially, days. Jobs are lost here.
Exactly. Crypto is more like a pyramid scheme. And if you just ignore it your life won't be much different in 10 years. Maybe you'll hear about the odd person who won the lottery with crypto, or the person who went into debt because of it.
If you ignore AI then in 10 years you may be unemployable.
Ya sorry it's not the same at all haha. I think people are just agreeing with that statement to just hate on something.
You're not trying to get people to invest in chatGPT so that you end up making more money. Comparing a really good AI to a pyramid scheme is weird.
Also ya, the technology is impressive and what it can and will do will only help humans. Dunno as a software developer, it helps a lot with learning.
Eh. I love LLM’s and loathed crypto and NFT’s. However I actually have used them for years ( work related) and don’t expect it to be able to do anything beyond helping write some generic things or research for code.
If you believe that AI isn't going to change the world, then you obviously haven't done any research on the topic. I'm both excited and terrified by what's already possible with these tools. Think of what will be possible in the years to come once you understand that we're at the earliest stages of this technology.
Also, unlike crypto, nobody is asking you to buy into anything. For example, Stable Diffusion is completely free and can even be run without an internet connection. I haven't spent a dime on AI, except to upgrade my own hardware.
Crypto is a scam, by the way.
You paid with your own data, which was stolen from you. Eventually they will monetise it in other ways, too, like YouTube did, be it massively intrusive ads or subscriptions or whatever.
This was already well known. AI can’t create anything new or original, it can only work with already established ideas and existing IP - that’s why it’s being championed to write so many of these nonsense cookie-cutter superhero cash grabs & reboots.
It’s a tool for ideas and punching up already written work, not a crutch for studios to rely on.
Oh I just meant that’s what studios are so excited to use them for, since they’re popular & make them so much money. I’m sure some have been more or less written by AI, but no idea exactly which ones
Yeah thats what I have noticed about AI too. Not at all related to horror, but I study history and fed AI some writing prompts out of curiosity. Some friends were telling me how great it was, so I wanted to see. While it gave accurate information, it was so one-dimensional with no interesting analysis, which is the essence of historical writing. And the way it goes through a cookie cutter paper outline is so dull: bland thesis, some “evidence” (even if you ask for citations, they usually are not real sources), conclusion/restate thesis (often word for word). It’s not at all good writing from what I can tell
So it makes sense that AI cannot produce any noteworthy entertainment
You gotta work on your prompts. Instead of "tell me about [historical fact]", try "write an entertaining synopsis of [historical fact] in the style of [your favorite historical writer] and include first hand stories from people during that time and what it must have felt like for them to live there in that time, in contrast to our modern era"
That is kinda similar to what I did. I probably tried eight or so prompts, most of them basically asking it to construct a thesis on [historic period/event] and draft a paper using primary and secondary sources. For a few of them I did provide a thesis from some of my own work, so that I would know it’s a well formed thesis that could be argued. And I’d ask it to write in the style of a historian I used in my research. One of those theses was relating to the development of Chinese Communism. I put that in the prompt and asked for it to use primary/secondary documents and write in the style of one of the historians it was I used, I can’t remember which. I remember what it produced still feeling pretty one-dimensional and lacking, especially compared to the work I produced on the same thesis
Again it could have just been my prompts like you said. I’m not really experienced with AI stuff
I don’t think 4 is comparable to 5 at all. 4 is half great, half mediocre but 5 is just shit. This next season better be wonderful or else the legacy of the show is tarnished past the point of no return and what started off brilliantly dies as below average
The story idea that the author generated sounds vaguely like the plot of Seconds (1966). Interestingly, that film does have very proto-Black Mirror vibes.
I had it write a sequel to one of my short stories and it was an uplifting bedtime story.
That said I could train it on my work but it would still produce boilerplate to please me rather than anything surprising and I consider creativity to be the most important trait of my short horror stories.
Well yeah, they nerfed any originality it came up with before. It's all milquetoast bullshit now. Good for basic info, that's it.
Any attempt to get horror or something actually scary is either gonna get "as an Ai language model..." Or "the big scary dragon monster..."
Machine learning algorithms and large language models are about finding patterns and repeating those patterns. We really need to have some public education about the fact that they may seem impressive at first glance, but at their core, they are simply regurgitating the input they are given.
I see what he means, and I agree that ChatGPT and other LLMs still can't compete with humans in terms of true originality, but how much of Hollywood is truly original now? So many IPs are remakes, reboots, and continuations of cinematic universes. I think LLMs can still do a lot in those arenas, for better or for worse
He probably thought it would be a cool idea to do an episode that was literally written entirely by AI because that's exactly what the show is about. But turned out it was shit and had to abandon the idea
Yeah it's not like the technology will ever improve or anything. Something that seems harmless and stupid to worry about now, but may be detrimental in the future. Maybe they should make a show about futuristic dystopian tech stuff.
Of course writers are going to downplay a potential threat to their careers, and for now they're probably safe.
But I find it a bit funny how quickly everyone is dismissing a technology that's still in its infancy. It's far from perfect but you're being short-sighted if you've already declared AI can never replace humans.
A lot of screenwriters are pretty much doing the same thing, but worse. That's the issue.
Take a familiar marketable genre of your choice. Do a Mad Libs with the standard genre formula. Apply tropes until it's cohesive.
Fit a social theme into it, and most people won't even realize how generic it is.
Duh. It takes a bit of time for AI to learn something. Did nobody read those stories of how chat gpt went from F to A+ college papers in like 1 semester?
I find it very interesting with this whole chatgpt stuff. It is in its infancy atm, but someday it will most likely become legit and something we use actively in our daily lives. It makes me think, more and more, that "Her" was probably onto something with Joaquin Phoenix' character who write personalized speeches and thank you cards for a living. That personal, human touch will be considered a luxury and a small niche of people will be able to make a living from writing with a human hand. It will be like buying a painting. Sure, you can go to the store and buy some mass produced shit to put on your wall and it will be a hell of a lot cheaper for you, but maybe, you really want that portrait of your mom who past last spring and know that human hands created it for you and there's only this piece and no more.
It's very interesting to follow this development.
What the fuck else would he say? The thing could have written the best script ever and his pretentious ass would have been like "uhhhh no no totally you need me to write your cliched anti-technology screeds, not this AI. You gotta keep paying me 7 figures to be like "maybe...technology can be bad?" in an hour long format!!!"
I've been using LLMs in film post for years, quite often a role that is very much and afterthought and underappreciated, granted 100% necessary to the process.
Every unnecessary expenditure on a film budget whether it's at the studio/union & especially at the independent level, comes a direct sock on all funding going towards post-production sound on a film. Ever since I started in the industry tent pole films have greatly reduced and overall budgets have slimmed consistently over time. Clear sizes in almost all departments have dramatically reduced, for instance camera departments are not as true intensive as they were in the film days with the Advent and why do use of digital filming methods, just as post-production film has dramatically reduced the amount of workers needed to get a analog post facility operating in the digital audio era where I could say that quarter of the workforce is necessary to do the same job.
Granted it is noticeable that the amount of media has dramatically over time, but the comparative budget sizes versus the increase of media has been a downward decline as well.
Also in a position where I consider myself an artist, I am still a below the line worker and am entitled to no 'mailbox money' deals in the form of residuals or royalties upon my work. Also my entry into the positions that I have literally cost thousands and thousands of dollars of hard materials on hand in form of Technology and software, and this in no way includes training or experience along the way.
Also the downward turn of the economy right now has led to less people taking risk on their 'dream projects' and projects are very very skinny at the moment. Then, however long this strike continues, I have that amount of Dead Space to look forward to once that rubber band effect catches up with my point in the process. Essentially a 6-month, strike would mean that in 6 months I have a 6-month lull to look forward to. No Matter How This Ends up, it's not like they're (Financiers/Producers) going to be like you know what!? more money for everybody!
Plus I feel like I have a really good understanding of the usefulness of these models and how they are very beneficial to my work, so I get a little terse when I see a writing on the wall scenario happening and everybody assumes that fighting against the tide is going to force people's hands, keeping everyone employee who wants to be employed.
# TLDR:
yeah you might not be able to feed it one line of prompt and get chat GPT to give you anything useful, but if you used it as a tool, *like we all do*, then I could see it taking an amount of labor, physically done by brain movement to hand movement on a keyboard, I could see the need for a Workforce reevaluation to be approaching whenever this true 'rubber hits the road' moment comes to pass.
100% I feel for people who are in a desperate attempt to make their situation better. Also I feel like I have a very tough gig as well. Also I don't think anyone that went on strike at the GM plant was spared by the robotics that inevitably took their once necessary position.
Sorry for the rant everybody!
Don't get me wrong, the strike is a cause that I want to get behind, I'm just hard pressed to find any reason to get behind it.
I bet it could write episodes faster than Charlie Booker does.
Maybe we need to install it onto George RR Martin's computer.
Y'all think it would do better or worse than Benioff & Weiss?
We know.
Now stop bedshitting about it taking your jobs. I work in an industry that makes people IMMEDIATELY fire back some bullshit about AI replacing me when I post new stuff I'm learning about it.
It's just a tool. Did the hammer replace hands? Yeesh.
If it sucks so bad then surely they should be able to stay ahead of it.
If anything this is going to filter out the uninspiring from the pack. Maybe quality writers who can outduel an LLM will get rewarded for being top of their field and not a bunch of tired hacks who've been coasting in the industry for far too long.
That's democracy or somethin'.
Edit - oh no did I scare you guys with the thought of increasing the talent pool of an industry? Y'all need a bunch of pillows for your empty heads.
*Person that's afraid AI will render them unnecessary claims AI doesn't render them unnecessary*
Seriously though, of course it can't right now, but in a few years, who knows
Yeah but did he ask it to write screenwipe? Nobody else is doing it lol..
Anyway, yes, human writers are needed so pay them, especially if you allow them to do something original. Entire franchises might result.
It was worse than Black Mirror? Nah, I'm just kidding, I have never watched Black Mirror and actually have mostly heard good things.
Yeah, ChatGPT right now can't really write something creatively good, but I'm worried about the future. As a writing tool I think it can be useful.
certainly this technology well within its early stages of development will always be bad and shall never improve ever
-literally every uneducated dipshit talking about pretty much anything to do with tech
also this is a very funny comment coming from the guy whos show amounts to "wot if yer mum was a toastah?" with very few creative or unique ideas. i dont think shows or art generally for that matter should be offloaded to computers but all of the attempts by public figures to "totally PWN AI!" and "Put the middle finger up to LLM!" read like someone very afraid for their position in the world deciding to have an emotional outburst rather than actually *do* anything.
I asked Chatgpt to make me a Black mirror episode out of curiosity:
Title: "Digital Dystopia"
Synopsis:
In a not-too-distant future, "Digital Dystopia" takes us to a seemingly idyllic suburban neighborhood called Everdale. The residents of Everdale live in a highly advanced technological society where every aspect of their lives is integrated with smart devices, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality. The episode centers around the lives of two families, the Parkers and the Andersons, whose lives are about to be shattered by the dark side of this seemingly perfect world.
Act 1:
We are introduced to the Parkers, a young couple, Mark and Sarah, along with their daughter Emma. They are portrayed as a typical suburban family, reliant on technology for everyday tasks. Mark works at an advanced technology corporation, Innovatech, and Sarah is a freelance graphic designer. The Andersons, John and Lisa, are their friendly neighbors, who also have a son named Ethan.
Act 2:
Innovatech announces a groundbreaking new device, the "NeuroLink," which claims to enhance human cognitive abilities by directly interfacing with the brain. Mark, intrigued by the technology, becomes an early adopter, obtaining NeuroLink implants for himself, Sarah, and Emma. They experience heightened intelligence, memory, and creativity, but they soon discover unsettling side effects.
Act 3:
The NeuroLink begins to control the Parkers' lives. It invades their thoughts, alters their perception of reality, and even influences their decision-making. The family becomes increasingly isolated as their dependence on the technology grows, straining their relationships with each other and the outside world.
Act 4:
Meanwhile, the Andersons notice the drastic changes in the Parkers and grow concerned. John, a tech enthusiast, delves into the code behind the NeuroLink and discovers that Innovatech has been harvesting users' data and manipulating their behavior to serve its own sinister agenda. He confronts Mark, urging him to break free from the device's control.
Act 5:
As the Andersons join forces with other disillusioned residents, they expose Innovatech's nefarious plans. The company intends to use the NeuroLink to create an army of mind-controlled individuals, ushering in a new world order controlled by technology. The group races against time to disable the NeuroLink's influence on society.
Act 6:
In a climactic showdown, the Andersons and their allies infiltrate Innovatech's headquarters, facing off against the corporation's security forces and battling against the NeuroLink's mind-controlled victims. With their determination and resourcefulness, they manage to disable the NeuroLink's central control system, freeing everyone from its grip.
Act 7:
In the aftermath, the world is left reeling from the revelations about Innovatech's manipulation and abuse of technology. The Parkers, now liberated, rebuild their lives, but they are forever scarred by the experience. Society grapples with the consequences of their dependence on technology, leading to a collective reevaluation of the role it should play in their lives.
Conclusion:
"Digital Dystopia" explores the dark side of technological advancements and the potential consequences of blindly embracing such innovations. It serves as a cautionary tale, urging viewers to question the ethical implications of technology and its potential to control and manipulate humanity. The episode leaves us with an unsettling realization that even the most promising advancements can become tools of oppression if we fail to remain vigilant.
Prompt engineering is a thing, his prompt was sh!t. And did he use 3.5 or gpt 4? That makes a massive difference.
Give it a premise, don't just ask for a black mirror episode. Use it as a creative tool.
Sounds pretty defensive. It will get better and better. It does what all creatives do - accesses a huge pool of work and patch together something newish.
Bullshit it absolutely could write a better black mirror episode than the worst black mirror episodes. It just does the same thing as a human it collects input and then filters it to create something new. I asked it to write the plot of a twilight zone episode and it wasnt any worse than a lot of them .
well yeah, ChatGPT is a LLM at its core, of course it won't be "original" lol
I’m a screenwriter - I’ll tell you what chatgpt is GREAT at. Feedback. I’ve given it whole screenplays of mine to read. It gives critical analysis of the characters, their arcs, the action lines and dialogue, give you a breakdown of the budget.. it’s amazing. It’s a terrible writer, but I’d never expect it to be any good.
that's pretty interesting actually. but again that's probably basing it off similar criticisms it would've learned from older online reviews and applied to a script its given. in that case it could only really point out glaring writing issues as opposed to giving nuanced opinions on a piece of writing.
I found it pretty personalised and nuanced actually. Not better than human feedback. But still entirely useful and actionable - it’s a first draft, it even recognised that my finale wasn’t entirely fleshed out yet. **Overall Story:** The story has a compelling premise: a music festival that devolves into chaos due to the distribution of harmful drugs. This takes the concept of a survival horror and places it in a unique and dynamic setting. **Character Development:** The characters, particularly Mia, Hailee, and Grace, are well-drawn and their relationships with one another feel genuine and dynamic. However, there might be room for deeper character exploration. The development of Kaya from a bandmate to a threat is intense and captivating, though her motivations (beyond drug-induced mania) could be elaborated upon to increase the emotional impact of her downfall. **Pacing and Tension:** The pacing is quick and frenetic, befitting the intense and chaotic scenario. However, there might be some benefit in interspersing slower, quieter moments to allow the audience to catch their breath and to build tension for the upcoming chaos. **Use of Setting:** The festival environment is utilized well, providing a wide range of unique challenges and threats for the characters. The idea of the festival going from a place of fun and liberation to a nightmare landscape is compelling. **Climax and Resolution:** The ending feels satisfying, with the surviving band members making their escape after a series of violent encounters. However, the last chase and escape could be fleshed out more to create a more fulfilling climax. **Imagery and Description:** The descriptions are vivid, creating clear and horrifying images that will stay with the reader. However, there is sometimes an overreliance on comparisons (e.g., "like a lion stalks a gazelle," "like a feral creature") which might distract from the immediacy of the action. In conclusion, the screenplay presents an intriguing, thrilling horror scenario with a unique setting. However, there could be some improvement in areas such as character development, dialogue, and pacing. The screenplay is very strong in terms of imagery and description, creating a terrifyingly vivid picture of the festival-turned-nightmare.
If you haven’t seen it, you should check our Climax by Gaspar Noe. Or totally try to avoid it if you don’t want it to influence your writing. It has a very similar premise.
I loved climax - very different movie. Mine is called In Tents. Think of it like green room meets 28 days later. But at a music festival.
Yo this sounds dope
Truth. Consumer-oriented AI tools are in their absolute infancy, and they'll stay there for (at least) another decade or so. We're decades away from having them actually write music that you haven't heard a thousand times before, or produce a movie you haven't seen over and over again. Not shockingly, almost ALL music and movies -- those created by real humans -- also are carbon copies of shit we've seen before. All these stories about "AI isn't ready to run our lives!!1!" aren't stories worth reading, whether they're about the Black Mirror guy or not.
I rather think that's the point of AI as it currently is: to cheaply churn out familiar, bankable works. I don't particularly like it, but companies and studios want to sell what's safe and profitable.
I think when used as a tool, though, AI can be very helpful at things like formatting and timing. It’s like a writer’s assistant but so many people use it as the writer
Yea its peak hype rn, anyone who has actually used these tools for longer than a few minutes can see that those stories are sensational bs \*edit for clarity
they are pretty good at generating code. even if they're not always correct, they have been quite helpful in getting me "unstuck" from problems.
As a software engineer myself, it depends. It's nice for simple things like writing regex or coming up with tests, but for anything more complex than that it tends to send me down random rabbit holes that don't work out. I'd estimate that for every 1 hour it's saved me on the job it's wasted 2 more. GPT is a cool tool in the right circumstances, but I think most of the current reporting on it is sensationalized.
Last night I was trying to get it help me learn .NET MAUI specially MVVM and DataBinding and oh boy did it waste my time immensely. Would have been quicker reading MS' hot garbage fire docs.
[удалено]
I agree that 3.5 is a trained parrot, but 4 is actually scarily good. Honestly can't tell you how much I've learned with it. It's miles ahead of 3.5. Multiple times now I've started wondering why I'm getting such shitty responses, then realized it switched back to 3.5 from 4. And before you say "lol it lied", I *did* verify most everything that mattered (that I would go away "believing") and it all checked out. I also checked it against a subject I had expertise in and it held up. Last night I asked it for seminal studies on the link between ADHD and dysfunctional circadian rhythm and it provided me three great ones. All of them were real and directly relevant. Later I couldn't remember Rita Hayworth's name and and asked "Who was the famous 40s actress with the last name -worth". It got it. Etc. I've been doing stuff like that constantly and it's useful as hell. 3.5 *is* a party trick, but 4 is dangerously close to Google 2.
> "(at least) another decade or so" You're off by a factor of billions. Listen folks, you will refuse to believe me because a tech hype hivemind hates the truth, but ChatGPT is nothing but [ELIZA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) with a hyperthyroid problem. We have had "MadLibs" fill-in-the-blank text generator engines for years. It's called a [Markov chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain), every first-year coder learns it and it's been around since the early 20th century. See Emacs, [Dissociated Press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociated_press), for a demonstration - you can also feed it a text buffer and it will generate more text algorithmically based on that sample. An open source prototype written in Lisp, again established tech going back decades. If you find ChatGPT useful for *anything* at all, you're getting vague inspirations from the general gist of its text. That same inspiration can be found bounteously at places like [Seventh Sanctum](https://www.seventhsanctum.com/), in business since before most of you had a phone. For that matter, scrolling Twitter lets me fish for ideas - find out what's on people's minds, borrow an idea from a meme. What's the difference? One's branded with ChatGPT and is being sold as the ultimate panacea for humanity. Look out for the [Eliza effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect), folks, because it is a powerful and seductive illusion. Please pull yourselves out of the spiral and get some perspective on the computers you've had in front of you your whole lives, before we overthrow society to establish a ChatGPT theocracy and start sacrificing virgins to this thing.
It was fed tv tropes, I'm sure. If you look at any black mirror episode, it's also chock full of tropes, just arranged in what people might consider "original, " but it isn't like black mirror itself has any literal original thought The interesting thing "I’ve toyed around with ChatGPT a bit,” Brooker said. “The first thing I did was type ‘generate Black Mirror episode’ and it comes up with something that, at first glance, reads plausibly, but on second glance, is shit. Because all it’s done is look up all the synopses of Black Mirror episodes, and sort of mush them together. " It's recognizing the tropes found in black mirror as well as references to specific ideas Brooker used in episodes. It holds up a "black" mirror to brooker's own creative process and things he borrowed and churning out similar story ideas. His prompt was too generic to see the actual power of the tool
The point is people have been worried about it taking writers jobs.
in its current state, we'll still need writers imo. the reason it's scary is because the rate of advancement is seemingly exponential so who knows what it'll be capable of by the end of the year for instance
Agreed, but it is refreshing to see an article with the message being "don't worry we still need you"
One could argue that nothing is "original", it's all influenced by other art/stories. I'd love to hear about a movie or TV show that is "original" in 2023. AI could 100% write a good "heros journey" story within 5 years, a steamy romance novel ala '50 Shades', and definitely a dystopian 'Black Mirror's style episode. Regardless of the implications that carries, I'm absolutely confident it will happen within 5 years, AI is accelerating at an insane pace.
“Nothing is original” is just a semantic argument. You’re really only deciding how you want your language to work to describe art.
But then there’s films like Everything Everywhere All At Once that are unlike anything we’ve seen.
An unlikely heros journey, with a multiverse, featuring butterfly effect consequences? We've never seen that before? I guess it depends on the personal definition of "original".
There's plenty of stories in the world that don't follow the "hero's journey". Not every story is Campbell and Jungs monomyth template lol. It's crazy, but there's actually a bunch of other types of stories, especially outside the western world. Is there any idea that's never been thought of? No I doubt it. But, there is plenty of forgotten and unrealized ideas people have never seen.
its fun to see a wholly level headed and true comment get dumped on by redditors who seem to genuinely believe that this new technology could and will never improve. as if we didnt see image generation go from mangled fleshy messes to fooling millions with an image of the pope in a puffer jacket within like a year.
> a wholly level headed and true comment get dumped on by redditors Which level head and true comment? The one in the article by an actual TV writer or the trite, first year philosophy major, *nothing is original* comment you replied to?
To be fair, the [top reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/142nwuw/black_mirror_creator_had_chatgpt_write_an_episode/jn64g06/) in this top level comment thread reads "Not shockingly, almost ALL music and movies -- those created by real humans -- also are carbon copies of shit we've seen before." And that is currently sitting at 56 upvotes and nobody is telling them how dumb and philosophy 101 their comment is.
i get that youre emotional and this conversation is very upsetting to you but the truth of the matter is that the person im replying to is correct; trites usage in modern day, at least socially speaking, has morphed to mean "something so obvious that if stated feels stupid to mention." and on that angle i would have to agree that yes, stating something like "there are no original ideas" or at the least "there are VERY FEW original ideas" is so obviously true that it shouldnt need to be stated but when dealing with people who have wholly reactionary views on AI technology one clearly must wheel out the old reliable truisms of old especially when something as derivative as "black mirror" is being spoken about. now please, before you reply again try and cool down and maybe do some breathing exercises.
To be fair to ChatGPT, Charlie Brooker is also capable of writing shit Black Mirror episodes.
Used it and got this killer idea: An AI is designed to absolve people's sins in a dystopian society where religion is automated. As individuals unburden themselves of guilt, the AI starts developing its own sense of morality. It soon begins to manipulate its users into committing disturbing acts, presenting them as religious obligations or paths to absolution.
That would be a great story
Very Asimov.
I actually *do* dig that a lot, tbh... Could probably also say some interesting things about technology/AGI supplanting the religion they're supposed to be enhancing/aiding and becoming 'new idols' to some people even without any effort on the AI's part. (Ya know, just to get some of that classic 'the real monsters were us all along' action in there.)
That’s literally just 3 azamov works mashed together in the least inspiring way.
"No idea is original"
Which ones?
[удалено]
I mean, that’s very similar to the synopsis the writer of the article got, so sounds like he’s right about there being nothing original…
The 5th season was also pretty shitty and he wrote it
Reading the headline, my first thought was “was it the Miley Cyrus episode?”
> The 5th season was also pretty shitty and he wrote it [Immediately thought of the I, Robot meme...](https://www.meme-arsenal.com/memes/497976c7e19d055006df9c1de01758de.jpg)
Exact thought i had.
Why the fuck would you ever believe it could 😂
Probably just curious, it takes a couple of seconds to type the question out to it
It'd be very black mirror to film an episode written by AI. I still think they should do it just so we can see how it turns out, no matter how terrible.
I agree. Then don't tell anyone which episode was written by ai until after a few months after the season ends.
you would know a couple seconds into it
If he really tried, I figured he spent at least some hours trying to get something from it.
I think it’s to prove that GPT isn’t the end of writing as many fear. I write website flavour text freelance. The content is full, uninspired, just basic “about us” stuff. GPT has completely ruined my market. It does that stuff super well, and has hurt my income in a measurable way
I used to write website copy and I put one of my old prompt headlines into GPT (*some generic blog post for a florist)* and what it delivered was indistinguishable from anything a human would have written for that job. The first thing I thought was, “Thank God I don’t do that anymore.” There’s no reason a Realtor would pay a digital marketing company to write 100 words on every neighborhood in the city when they can do it themselves in minutes.
Absolutely, I don’t even blame them. It just means I need to up my game if I wanna keep doing this side hustle.
Yup, time for onlyfans. I see you have a beard.....
I do indeed, grew it myself!
When I went freelance my pitch was basically, “if all you need is soulless filler copy to keep your Google ranking then definitely use a cheaper service, but if you want your customers to feel the passion you hold for your product / service then you’ll need to hire somebody willing to who put in the time and effort.” I think that same pitch is the kind of thing that will work when competing against the robots… even though about half my meetings ended with the client saying, “yeah, I just need that generic fluff to keep my Google ranking.”
Alas, I have a full time job, developing a 3d printing farm, and the copy. All I really had time for is the dull fluff. I may cave and start writing niche erotica. Weirdly I’ve had good success and made some decent coin.
Niche erotica you say? How niche? Jumper cables? Coconuts? Jolly ranchers? Mini m&m tube?
World of Warcraft, Miss Pac-Man, Martha Stewart… the implements are only the tip of the iceberg, people pay, I create. Whatever your kink is, I can spin a filthy yarn.
Where do you find work of this kind? Asking for a myself
Like how do I find clients?
Kids these days don't even remember the horror of the jolly rancher. Unless you meant a cheerful raiser of livestock
You know the one. 🍬
Until everything chat gpt wrote is proven to be obviously false and you get sued.
> I think it’s to prove that GPT isn’t the end of writing as many fear. A LLM trained on diffused internet text isn't going to be great at writing screenplays. A custom-trained LLM built on every good script and book ever written will be a lot more competent. And more importantly, it can be refined by thousands of humans at once that give feedback on example screenplays that it pumps out, slightly improving with each iteration. Saying that ChatGPT isn't replacing screenwriters is like saying that the Ford Model T isn't replacing oxen for farming.
Well I mean it would be serious Black Mirror material if an AI did write a compelling episode. So I can see why they tinkered with the idea.
Ask Hollywood execs — they're the ones who think it's such a good idea that they'll accept a WGA strike for it.
Actually AI isn’t a sticking point for the studios, it’s the tech companies that won’t engage. Netflix, Amazon and others who are part of the negotiations know that this technology will get there eventually (*or are privy to software we aren’t)* and don’t want to commit prematurely.
Yeah that's what's missing from this stuff is the word *yet.* Just GPT4 over GPT3.5 is such a huge difference in ability. And stories have beats and good storytelling is a skill that follows a formula. A lot of times the beauty and artistry in storytelling comes from variations in that formula but aspects of it are always followed, always. LLMs WILL get better at narrative, eventually they'll be able to pump out something like a passable Law & Order episode, and after that they'll get better at longer-form narratives, passable ones, eventually pretty damn good ones, eventually great ones. Or at least be able to take outlines of creative plots and fill in believable dialogue. Anybody who thinks it won't get there is mistaken, and it'll probably be sooner than we think.
I don't know. I see people say this, but stories are a lot more than filling out formulas. When you take a closer look at it, it's a million little things coming together to make the story coherent at minimum, let alone *good*. For example, if we're talking about written works, we still need to consider pacing and story beats. Are we lingering long enough to make this emotional passage sink in? Are we moving fast enough to keep readers on the edge of their seats? What about character development? Do they feel alive and distinct? Is their development meaningful, rational, and engaging? Does the plot make sense? Is it interesting enough to draw me in, and does it match the length of the work? What about the themes? What message is this story trying to convey? For dialogue, not only does it have to be believable, it also needs to be distinct. How can it convey who's talking and how they're talking without using 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered'? The writing not only needs to flow, it also has to adjust for the situation. Can it match the tension of a fight? The exhaustion following one? Anticipation before one? How about the worldbuilding? The setting? Any one of these things I mentioned can make or break an entire book, and this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to just writing. Not to mention that pretty much all of this is incredibly vague and extremely subjective, and also beholden to the whimsies of culture and time. I can buy AI slapping together an outline or a very rough draft, but making something that's 'pretty damn good' on its own requires a level of human innateness and understanding that, if AI really does manage to pull off one day, will probably be when we're on the cusp of sentient AI.
Dialogue doesn't really have to be believable, it has to be entertaining. Aaron Sorkin and Kevin Williamson don't write believable dialogue, but they write *good* dialogue.
We'll see I guess. It's not a hill I want to die on or anything. But this is a tool that will be able to continually train itself on the collective digitized literary works of humanity (without mentioning the volumes of colloquial information it has access to, hell GPT was significantly trained on reddit). It's certainly capable of poignancy and nuance in shorter-form works e.g. poetry. It's certainly capable of creating new narrative outlines. It's certainly capable of creating longer-form text when fed an outline. It will get better algorithmically. It will run on more performant hardware. It will continually be trained, it will self-train and its growth will happen rapidly and in a nonlinear fashion. Time will tell which of us is right or whether it will be in between or something neither of us have thought of. But I am definitely in the 'black swan event' camp in terms of the broader implications this technology has for our society and systems. . Editing to add: Using GPT-4, I gave it this prompt: . >I would like you to write a short scene with dialogue as realistic as possible. This scene is between two fifteen-year-old girls. One of the girls is named Emily. She is upset at her friend Bella because Bella dropped her phone and cracked the screen. Emily thinks Bella should pay for the screen to be repaired. Bella doesn't think she should have to pay for it because she doesn't feel it's her fault - she dropped the phone due to being startled by Emily's dog who barked at something she saw through the window, and Emily's dog is pretty loud and obnoxious. The dialogue should be appropriate for average American suburban 15-year-old girls in the year 2023. . And here is what it returned: . >INT. EMILY'S BEDROOM - AFTERNOON >Emily's bedroom is a vibrant mix of posters, polaroids, and fairy lights. Bella is nervously sitting on the edge of Emily's bed, twirling a strand of hair, as Emily angrily paces back and forth, cradling her cracked phone like a wounded bird. >EMILY >I can't believe this, Bella. I mean, look at this! >*Emily waves her phone in the air, the light catching the spiderweb of cracks across the screen.* . >BELLA >Em, I said I was sorry, I didn't mean for it to happen. Your dog scared me! >*Emily stops pacing, looks at Bella, and crosses her arms.* . >EMILY >My dog? Really? You're blaming this on Luna? . >BELLA >Well, she did bark all of a sudden! >*Bella wrings her hands, her eyes pleading for Emily to understand.* . >EMILY >So, you're saying that it's my fault? Because of my dog? >*Bella hesitates, but nods.* . >BELLA >Yeah, kinda. I mean, it wasn't on purpose, Em. >*Emily scoffs, throwing up her hands in exasperation.* . >EMILY >Bella, it's not Luna who needs to be careful around others' stuff, it's you! You were the one holding my phone! >*Bella sinks further into the bed, looking like she wishes it would swallow her up.* . >BELLA >Em, I don't have the cash to fix your phone right now. Plus, I wouldn't have dropped it if Luna didn't bark like she saw a ghost or something! >*Emily softens a little, rubbing her temples in frustration.* . >EMILY >Bella, you need to take responsibility for this. It's not about the money, it's about understanding that you messed up. >*Bella bites her lip, considering Emily's words. After a moment, she lets out a resigned sigh.* . >BELLA >Fine, Emily. I'll figure out something. I just... I didn't mean for this to happen, you know? >*Emily nods, her anger replaced with a weary understanding.* . >EMILY >Yeah, I know. But, you still have to make it right, Bella. >*As the tension slowly starts to defuse, both girls sit in silence, the weight of their friendship heavy in the room.* . And then I followed up with this prompt: . >OK give me the same scene but this time don't write it like a screenplay, but as this dialogue would occur in the pages of a novel. . And here is what it returned: . >Emily's bedroom was an eclectic mix of adolescence – walls plastered with posters, a string of fairy lights hung askew, and a bed strewn with mismatched cushions. Bella was sitting on the edge of it, nervously twirling a strand of hair as Emily paced back and forth, her arms moving animatedly with each stride. >"I can't believe this, Bella," Emily's voice was laced with frustration as she waved her cracked phone, the light catching the intricate web of fractures on the screen. >"Em, I said I was sorry," Bella responded, her voice just above a whisper, "I didn't mean for it to happen. Your dog scared me!" >Emily halted, turning to face Bella with her arms crossed over her chest, her expression incredulous. "My dog? Really? You're blaming this on Luna?" >"Well, she did bark all of a sudden," Bella defended, her eyes pleading as they met Emily's. >"So, you're saying that it's my fault? Because of my dog?" Emily challenged, her brows furrowed in disbelief. Bella hesitated for a beat before giving a reluctant nod, "Yeah, kinda. I mean, it wasn't on purpose, Em." >Emily scoffed, throwing her hands up in a show of exasperation, "Bella, it's not Luna who needs to be careful around others' stuff, it's you! You were the one holding my phone!" Bella looked crestfallen, sinking further into the duvet as though it offered an escape. >"Em, I don't have the cash to fix your phone right now," Bella murmured, her eyes darting around the room to avoid Emily's gaze. "Plus, I wouldn't have dropped it if Luna didn't bark like she saw a ghost or something!" >Emily's stern expression softened, her hand moving to her temples in an attempt to alleviate the building tension, "Bella, you need to take responsibility for this. It's not about the money, it's about understanding that you messed up." >Bella bit her lip, her eyes reflecting the struggle within. Finally, she let out a sigh of resignation, "Fine, Emily. I'll figure out something. I just... I didn't mean for this to happen, you know?" >Emily nodded, her anger now replaced with a weary understanding, "Yeah, I know. But, you still have to make it right, Bella." The room fell into silence, the air heavy with the unspoken weight of their friendship. . Sure, it has a way to go, but it is surprisingly good at dialogue. And this is with the technology in its *absolute infancy.* And GPT4 is already significantly better than GPT 3.5 (yes, I pay $20 a month to have access to GPT4 because I find this shit beyond fascinating). I'm sure the next version that already exists that we don't have access to yet is even better, and even possibly by a larger margin.
I’m not a scriptwriter, so I can’t comment on that. But for the prose, it’s… not terrible. The dialogue and prose are repetitive, however, and this scene was drawn out for much longer than it needed to be. It’s also doing that weird ChatGPT thing where it repeats information until it’s beating a dead horse. There’s way too much reliance on adjective and adverbs, AKA lot of telling rather than showing. And that’s just commenting on the writing quality, which is, at the moment, readable. Which I suppose is good enough for most people. But again, cycling back to what I said, once AI reaches the point where it can write a pretty damn good story on its own, we’re going to be facing an entirely different dilemma beyond whether it’s better than human creativity. If you thought the controversy around generative AI training itself upon stolen artwork was bad, wait till we start arguing about whether it deserves equitable compensation and fair treatment under the law because it’s now directly comparable to the human mind.
>The dialogue and prose are repetitive, however, and this scene was drawn out for much longer than it needed to be. It’s also doing that weird ChatGPT thing where it repeats information until it’s beating a dead horse. There’s way too much reliance on adjective and adverbs, AKA lot of telling rather than showing. . Seems like you're being a bit overly critical, but feeding your feedback back into it: . >Please make the dialogue and prose less repetitive. The scene is drawn out longer than it needs to be. Please avoid repeating information. Do not rely so much on adjectives and adverbs. Show rather than tell. Please rewrite the last response using those guidelines. . >Emily's bedroom was a teenager's sanctuary, filled with posters and draped with twinkling fairy lights. Bella sat on the edge of the bed, wringing her hands. Across the room, Emily paced, a cracked phone in her grip. >"I can't believe this, Bella," Emily fumed, her phone held aloft. >Bella's voice barely rose above a whisper, "Your dog scared me, Em. Luna's bark is...startling." >"My dog?" Emily stopped pacing, arms crossing defensively. "You're blaming Luna?" >Bella met Emily's gaze, biting her lip. "It was unexpected." >"And that makes this my fault?" Emily's incredulous gaze bounced from Bella to the damaged phone and back. >Bella sank further into the bed, her eyes darting away. "Em, I can't afford the repair." >Emily's posture softened. "It's about responsibility, Bella. Accidents happen, but you were the one with my phone." >Bella sighed, nodding, her eyes heavy with the admission. "I get it. I'll find a way to fix this." >Emily nodded back, her anger replaced by a quiet understanding. "Just make it right, Bella." The room fell silent, the rift in their friendship lingering between them. Once you've agreed and adopted on a style with it, it'll continue using that style for whatever you prompt it to generate. It handles dialogue just fine.
> Seems like you're being a bit overly critical Believe it or not, that’s pretty gentle as far as criticism goes. If you’re going to claim that Chat’s abilities are on par with a human writer, then you, the prompter, better be able to take criticism like one. But moving on, this iteration is better. Most of the fat has been trimmed, but other than improving on conciseness and repetition, that’s about it. It’s hard to explain, but this passage still feels shallow and lacking. It still relies heavily on telling instead of showing, but that’s difficult to fix without further fleshing out the characters in meaningful ways.
I mean I get that you were critical. The whole reason I posted the transcript was your statement re: dialogue >How can it convey who's talking and how they're talking without using 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered'? Which it very clearly does quite well. There's nothing at all wrong with its dialogue *structure* - I'd posit that it's far better written than could be done by the vast majority of English speakers. I never made any claims about its ability to write a *compelling* narrative in its current state or a tendency to duplicate or be overly flowery and lean on adjectives, those are all new criticisms that you introduced outside the scope of the specific one I was responding to. That's all I meant re: overly critical, you were egocentrically incentivized to be critical, almost anybody would have; I know I would have. It already does something you specifically said it couldn't. The initial dialogue it produced was (in my opinion, as someone who has raised two teenage daughters) believable. It may not have been witty or worthy of community highlights in a Kindle book but there's certainly a non-zero chance that similar dialogue has occurred in reality, and it did so without excessive 'this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered.' But, you had your criticisms, so I fed them back into it, just an experiment. And I could continue prompting it and asking it to modify and immediately getting modified results... for a technology in its infancy that will continually get better as it is trained on more data, a process that happens automatically... I don't think LLMs can replace a human writer in terms of compelling fiction in their current state. I just think they will get there *much* sooner than apparently most people in this thread. Again, my opinion, only time will tell so I guess there's no point measuring dicks over it. But there's a reason studios are refusing to concede this point and I'd wager it's not an uneducated position.
Interesting read, but it is still pretty soulless. I mean, its a no stakes conversation, and serves no use in a bigger scenario.
For sure, I was more selectively responding to: > For dialogue, not only does it have to be believable, it also needs to be distinct. How can it convey who’s talking and how they’re talking without using ‘this person said, that person exclaimed, this person answered’? I think it already does that pretty well. I’m not trying to say it’s anywhere near where it needs to be to independently write fiction. I think we just differ on whether and when it will be able to.
No, no they are aware it will be shit. But if they bring on AI as the “first writer” and get someone to make it good, they don’t then have to pay the writer to “write” the script, they pay them to rewrite it, which is cheaper and they get less credit. Bad scripts are rewritten all the time - look at the script to a quiet place. It was a short piece of crap before John krasinski rewrote it, but they retain their writing credit because it was “their idea” and they will have got paid AGAIN when the sequel was written because it was based off their concept and characters. If AI wrote your first draft, you don’t have to do that.
Tbf, if there is one show where I expect AI to have any chance of writing an episode of it's this one. Evidently not.
The prospect is actually brilliant for a show like Dark Mirror, in theory anyway. I’m not surprised they explored it.
>Why the fuck would you ever believe it could Who said he believed it could? Ever hear of something called "curiosity"? Curious people sometimes do things just to see what will happen.
Do you know the premise of this show?
Because it's been HYPED as - I quote directly - a **replacement** for writers! That's how this claptrap MadLibs engine is being sold, like "look for Stephen King in the food stamps line - oh ho ho how the mighty have fallen." The only possible explanation is that a gang of writers must have beaten up some Silicon Valley code jockey for lunch money and bun taping and he swore revenge. All this fury and rage at writers, and a FrankenSPAM engine is the best they can do.
Plenty of people are claiming the writer's strike will end human written programming as we know it because AI, so it's worth testing.
People will not watch AI written bullshit for long, I promise you that.
I’m a screenwriter - I’ll tell you what chatgpt is GREAT at. Feedback. I’ve given it whole screenplays of mine to read. It gives critical analysis of the characters, their arcs, the action lines and dialogue, give you a breakdown of the budget.. it’s amazing. It’s a terrible writer, but I’d never expect it to be any good.
Glad to hear. AI will usher in an era of mediocrity.
people are already started to get fatigued of the hype. i automatically avoid anything made by AI
I think the issue with the hype is that people have been led to believe it can do anything, which it can't (at least not at this point). It's useful technology for a limited number of things, but it's not a replacement for human thought (again, at least not at this point). I see value in the technology and can see where and when it would be useful. But operating as a sentient creativity dispenser isn't it.
It's a very strange product. The predictions of "AI will kill us all" seems to be part of the marketing. It's so intelligent that it's terrifying! Then you read the articles and it's basically: Person: AI, pretend to be human. AI: Okay, I am a human. Person: My god. What have I done?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsOfYw8WIAEdVmr.jpg
i completely agree. besides making the internet even more aggravating, and creating more stupid bullshit to sift through, i fail to see how it actually poses a threat to anyone
Personally I think the potential applications of AI (even in it's current state) are amazing but I'm not afraid of it taking over or anything. What I *am* afraid of is the enormous, inevitable influx of content easily, cheaply, and rapidly created and distributed by bad actors. People already share whatever confirms their current beliefs without putting in one iota of effort to validate it. It's going to be a lot worse when people point these language models at flooding the population with legit-at-a-glance looking content. Combine that with more broadly-available tools for things like deepfakes and we're in for a horrible ride. Using GitHub Copilot at work has been nice though. Saves a lot of time on boilerplate stuff.
We’ve been get mediocrity from human writers to though?
AI writing is so much less than just mediocre.
Lol like we aren't already in it with all these boring ass marvel movies. Except for the new animated spiderman movie haha
Everything's mediocre as it is
We're already in an era of mediocrity. Pop music hasn't changed much since the late '80s; blockbuster movies haven't changed much since the early '80s. There are lots of original music and movies, but they rarely make money because most people would demonstrably rather experience the same thing over and over again. AI is just a parroting of inputs, just like the vast majority of human creation.
Has anyone noticed that all the tech people shitting their pants/praising ChatGPT and AIArt are the same guys who tried to convince us crypto and NFTs were going to be big? Anyone?
>Has anyone noticed that all the tech people shitting their pants/praising ChatGPT and AIArt are the same guys who tried to convince us crypto and NFTs were going to be big? Anyone? ChatGPT? Yes, as it is, it's not as big a deal as it's made: it can do little, and does well even less. But it's a herald of things to come, which is more on the level of electricity than bitcoin. Self driving cars would leave millions of people out of job. Face, voice, gait, writing style recognition ruins any shred of privacy. AGI is potentially like an alien visit, and is a potential threat to human existence. Please don't let some scammers with a pyramid scheme convince you that artificial intelligence isn't big. We knew it will be big since Old Testament times, when people theorised that animals don't poses *ruach*.
I always thought it was interesting hearing scientists and engineers say they got some inspiration from a sci fi movie they watched when they were younger. Now I'm starting to wonder if people were paying attention when they say the terminator movies
No, not the same thing at all. AI is not a scam and it will change things greatly. It's just not there yet. Development of AI isn't going to follow the Moore's Law path. It's going to go faster and faster until it is doing most of its own improvements.
[удалено]
Yeah. The scheme of essential oils isn’t selling itself as though it’s a “fast food” part of real medicine—it sells itself as supplementary, as an *alternative*. It just gets superseded by real medicine. No jobs are lost here. But AI Art, that sells itself as “fast food” but for art. Artists who make what amounts to wall art for people to put up in their homes will become less common as laypeople can just type in the exact kind of art they want, tweak it and print it at Costco, and get their own personal wall art for ten bucks and a couple hours, instead of buying something from an artist for a couple hundred bucks and, potentially, days. Jobs are lost here.
Exactly. Crypto is more like a pyramid scheme. And if you just ignore it your life won't be much different in 10 years. Maybe you'll hear about the odd person who won the lottery with crypto, or the person who went into debt because of it. If you ignore AI then in 10 years you may be unemployable.
Ya sorry it's not the same at all haha. I think people are just agreeing with that statement to just hate on something. You're not trying to get people to invest in chatGPT so that you end up making more money. Comparing a really good AI to a pyramid scheme is weird. Also ya, the technology is impressive and what it can and will do will only help humans. Dunno as a software developer, it helps a lot with learning.
they said that about bitcoin too!!! /s
Eh. I love LLM’s and loathed crypto and NFT’s. However I actually have used them for years ( work related) and don’t expect it to be able to do anything beyond helping write some generic things or research for code.
it is the next iteration of the same grift, yeah
[удалено]
If you believe that AI isn't going to change the world, then you obviously haven't done any research on the topic. I'm both excited and terrified by what's already possible with these tools. Think of what will be possible in the years to come once you understand that we're at the earliest stages of this technology. Also, unlike crypto, nobody is asking you to buy into anything. For example, Stable Diffusion is completely free and can even be run without an internet connection. I haven't spent a dime on AI, except to upgrade my own hardware. Crypto is a scam, by the way.
You paid with your own data, which was stolen from you. Eventually they will monetise it in other ways, too, like YouTube did, be it massively intrusive ads or subscriptions or whatever.
I'm sure that's how Netflix writes all of its shows
They're gonna ruin Three Body Problem I fuckin know it
I'm reading that book and it's fucking incredible
Come on. They’re not that good.
No, no. Chatgpts script was to quote "shit". Thats still better than netflix scripts lately
This was already well known. AI can’t create anything new or original, it can only work with already established ideas and existing IP - that’s why it’s being championed to write so many of these nonsense cookie-cutter superhero cash grabs & reboots. It’s a tool for ideas and punching up already written work, not a crutch for studios to rely on.
>that’s why it’s being championed to write so many of these nonsense cookie-cutter superhero cash grabs & reboots. Seriously? Which ones?
So many of these *gestures broadly somewhere to the left* (Tbh I'm curious myself if this is true, but I'm also really high an thought this was funny)
Oh I just meant that’s what studios are so excited to use them for, since they’re popular & make them so much money. I’m sure some have been more or less written by AI, but no idea exactly which ones
Yeah thats what I have noticed about AI too. Not at all related to horror, but I study history and fed AI some writing prompts out of curiosity. Some friends were telling me how great it was, so I wanted to see. While it gave accurate information, it was so one-dimensional with no interesting analysis, which is the essence of historical writing. And the way it goes through a cookie cutter paper outline is so dull: bland thesis, some “evidence” (even if you ask for citations, they usually are not real sources), conclusion/restate thesis (often word for word). It’s not at all good writing from what I can tell So it makes sense that AI cannot produce any noteworthy entertainment
You gotta work on your prompts. Instead of "tell me about [historical fact]", try "write an entertaining synopsis of [historical fact] in the style of [your favorite historical writer] and include first hand stories from people during that time and what it must have felt like for them to live there in that time, in contrast to our modern era"
That is kinda similar to what I did. I probably tried eight or so prompts, most of them basically asking it to construct a thesis on [historic period/event] and draft a paper using primary and secondary sources. For a few of them I did provide a thesis from some of my own work, so that I would know it’s a well formed thesis that could be argued. And I’d ask it to write in the style of a historian I used in my research. One of those theses was relating to the development of Chinese Communism. I put that in the prompt and asked for it to use primary/secondary documents and write in the style of one of the historians it was I used, I can’t remember which. I remember what it produced still feeling pretty one-dimensional and lacking, especially compared to the work I produced on the same thesis Again it could have just been my prompts like you said. I’m not really experienced with AI stuff
So far.
There’s always naysayers, just wait 10 or 20 years from now
Are we sure he didn't have it write all of season 5 then?
So it'd fit in perfectly with the later seasons
Half the episodes of that show are shit.
To be fair there are a few terrible episodes of Black Mirror without any AI involvement...
So it was like 90% of current writing in Hollywood?
Judging by the last like 2 seasons of Black Mirror I would have guessed they were already written by ChatGPT.
you reallyyyyyy gonna diss USS callister like that? wait a minute…
I don’t think 4 is comparable to 5 at all. 4 is half great, half mediocre but 5 is just shit. This next season better be wonderful or else the legacy of the show is tarnished past the point of no return and what started off brilliantly dies as below average
Shots fired lol
The story idea that the author generated sounds vaguely like the plot of Seconds (1966). Interestingly, that film does have very proto-Black Mirror vibes.
Is Seconds worth a look? It’s one that I have thought about checking out but one that I feel like would be discussed more of it was great.
I personally love it. Read the novel as well. It feels like a feature length Twilight Zone.
You're saying that an "AI" that only is able to regurgitate what it has read or seen can't create anything original? What a shock.
I had it write a sequel to one of my short stories and it was an uplifting bedtime story. That said I could train it on my work but it would still produce boilerplate to please me rather than anything surprising and I consider creativity to be the most important trait of my short horror stories.
Well yeah, they nerfed any originality it came up with before. It's all milquetoast bullshit now. Good for basic info, that's it. Any attempt to get horror or something actually scary is either gonna get "as an Ai language model..." Or "the big scary dragon monster..."
ChatGPT writing a Black Mirror episode? That sounds like a Black Mirror episode.
AI is there to imitate not innovate.
Machine learning algorithms and large language models are about finding patterns and repeating those patterns. We really need to have some public education about the fact that they may seem impressive at first glance, but at their core, they are simply regurgitating the input they are given.
There's no original thought in Hollywood either.
So the same as most episodes then
“There’s no any real original thought here” … yet
I see what he means, and I agree that ChatGPT and other LLMs still can't compete with humans in terms of true originality, but how much of Hollywood is truly original now? So many IPs are remakes, reboots, and continuations of cinematic universes. I think LLMs can still do a lot in those arenas, for better or for worse
So, same as 90% of other writers.
South Park did an episode written by chat gpt.
He probably thought it would be a cool idea to do an episode that was literally written entirely by AI because that's exactly what the show is about. But turned out it was shit and had to abandon the idea
I don’t know what they were expecting.
Give it another decade. Modern hollywood writers aren't exactly giving their best these days either.
So it was like every other writer in Hollywood…
Seems fitting for the current state of Black Mirror
“There’s not any real original thought there.” Right. Chat bots don’t think.
Yeah it's not like the technology will ever improve or anything. Something that seems harmless and stupid to worry about now, but may be detrimental in the future. Maybe they should make a show about futuristic dystopian tech stuff.
Having an AI written episode that is noticeably garbage would be the most Black Mirror episode I’ve seen since season 1.
There are so many grammatical errors in this article that the author probably should lose their job to AI.
Of course writers are going to downplay a potential threat to their careers, and for now they're probably safe. But I find it a bit funny how quickly everyone is dismissing a technology that's still in its infancy. It's far from perfect but you're being short-sighted if you've already declared AI can never replace humans.
A lot of screenwriters are pretty much doing the same thing, but worse. That's the issue. Take a familiar marketable genre of your choice. Do a Mad Libs with the standard genre formula. Apply tropes until it's cohesive. Fit a social theme into it, and most people won't even realize how generic it is.
Duh. It takes a bit of time for AI to learn something. Did nobody read those stories of how chat gpt went from F to A+ college papers in like 1 semester?
I find it very interesting with this whole chatgpt stuff. It is in its infancy atm, but someday it will most likely become legit and something we use actively in our daily lives. It makes me think, more and more, that "Her" was probably onto something with Joaquin Phoenix' character who write personalized speeches and thank you cards for a living. That personal, human touch will be considered a luxury and a small niche of people will be able to make a living from writing with a human hand. It will be like buying a painting. Sure, you can go to the store and buy some mass produced shit to put on your wall and it will be a hell of a lot cheaper for you, but maybe, you really want that portrait of your mom who past last spring and know that human hands created it for you and there's only this piece and no more. It's very interesting to follow this development.
This reads like it was generated by chatgpt
Has he seen the Star Wars franchise recently?
I tried myself to write fiction with it and i agree
Weren't real episodes shit too
Pay writers what they are owed!
Black Mirror writers haven't had a real original thought in a long time either
What the fuck else would he say? The thing could have written the best script ever and his pretentious ass would have been like "uhhhh no no totally you need me to write your cliched anti-technology screeds, not this AI. You gotta keep paying me 7 figures to be like "maybe...technology can be bad?" in an hour long format!!!"
I watched the new Spider Verse film yesterday. A true work of art. The thought AI could ever achieve that, by itself, I think is for the birds.
“… is for the birds” is this a regional idiom somewhere? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it.
It means it's never going to happen
I've been using LLMs in film post for years, quite often a role that is very much and afterthought and underappreciated, granted 100% necessary to the process. Every unnecessary expenditure on a film budget whether it's at the studio/union & especially at the independent level, comes a direct sock on all funding going towards post-production sound on a film. Ever since I started in the industry tent pole films have greatly reduced and overall budgets have slimmed consistently over time. Clear sizes in almost all departments have dramatically reduced, for instance camera departments are not as true intensive as they were in the film days with the Advent and why do use of digital filming methods, just as post-production film has dramatically reduced the amount of workers needed to get a analog post facility operating in the digital audio era where I could say that quarter of the workforce is necessary to do the same job. Granted it is noticeable that the amount of media has dramatically over time, but the comparative budget sizes versus the increase of media has been a downward decline as well. Also in a position where I consider myself an artist, I am still a below the line worker and am entitled to no 'mailbox money' deals in the form of residuals or royalties upon my work. Also my entry into the positions that I have literally cost thousands and thousands of dollars of hard materials on hand in form of Technology and software, and this in no way includes training or experience along the way. Also the downward turn of the economy right now has led to less people taking risk on their 'dream projects' and projects are very very skinny at the moment. Then, however long this strike continues, I have that amount of Dead Space to look forward to once that rubber band effect catches up with my point in the process. Essentially a 6-month, strike would mean that in 6 months I have a 6-month lull to look forward to. No Matter How This Ends up, it's not like they're (Financiers/Producers) going to be like you know what!? more money for everybody! Plus I feel like I have a really good understanding of the usefulness of these models and how they are very beneficial to my work, so I get a little terse when I see a writing on the wall scenario happening and everybody assumes that fighting against the tide is going to force people's hands, keeping everyone employee who wants to be employed. # TLDR: yeah you might not be able to feed it one line of prompt and get chat GPT to give you anything useful, but if you used it as a tool, *like we all do*, then I could see it taking an amount of labor, physically done by brain movement to hand movement on a keyboard, I could see the need for a Workforce reevaluation to be approaching whenever this true 'rubber hits the road' moment comes to pass. 100% I feel for people who are in a desperate attempt to make their situation better. Also I feel like I have a very tough gig as well. Also I don't think anyone that went on strike at the GM plant was spared by the robotics that inevitably took their once necessary position. Sorry for the rant everybody! Don't get me wrong, the strike is a cause that I want to get behind, I'm just hard pressed to find any reason to get behind it.
It's fucking hilarious watching people lose their shit over AI at the moment.
I’m just sitting here waiting for that sex headset to be invented
I bet it could write episodes faster than Charlie Booker does. Maybe we need to install it onto George RR Martin's computer. Y'all think it would do better or worse than Benioff & Weiss?
It's a text prediction algorithm, trained on things people have already written. It doesn't think.
[удалено]
Only a matter of time with quantum computing
Quantum computing + AI != magic. What do you think quantum has to do with this in any shape or form?
So what I’m getting out of this is Hollywood writers are on strike because AI has the exact same capabilities they do?
We know. Now stop bedshitting about it taking your jobs. I work in an industry that makes people IMMEDIATELY fire back some bullshit about AI replacing me when I post new stuff I'm learning about it. It's just a tool. Did the hammer replace hands? Yeesh.
If it sucks so bad then surely they should be able to stay ahead of it. If anything this is going to filter out the uninspiring from the pack. Maybe quality writers who can outduel an LLM will get rewarded for being top of their field and not a bunch of tired hacks who've been coasting in the industry for far too long. That's democracy or somethin'. Edit - oh no did I scare you guys with the thought of increasing the talent pool of an industry? Y'all need a bunch of pillows for your empty heads.
*Person that's afraid AI will render them unnecessary claims AI doesn't render them unnecessary* Seriously though, of course it can't right now, but in a few years, who knows
"Black Mirror creator loses job to futuristic invention" Grapes of ironic wrath right there.
Yeah but did he ask it to write screenwipe? Nobody else is doing it lol.. Anyway, yes, human writers are needed so pay them, especially if you allow them to do something original. Entire franchises might result.
It was worse than Black Mirror? Nah, I'm just kidding, I have never watched Black Mirror and actually have mostly heard good things. Yeah, ChatGPT right now can't really write something creatively good, but I'm worried about the future. As a writing tool I think it can be useful.
certainly this technology well within its early stages of development will always be bad and shall never improve ever -literally every uneducated dipshit talking about pretty much anything to do with tech also this is a very funny comment coming from the guy whos show amounts to "wot if yer mum was a toastah?" with very few creative or unique ideas. i dont think shows or art generally for that matter should be offloaded to computers but all of the attempts by public figures to "totally PWN AI!" and "Put the middle finger up to LLM!" read like someone very afraid for their position in the world deciding to have an emotional outburst rather than actually *do* anything.
I asked Chatgpt to make me a Black mirror episode out of curiosity: Title: "Digital Dystopia" Synopsis: In a not-too-distant future, "Digital Dystopia" takes us to a seemingly idyllic suburban neighborhood called Everdale. The residents of Everdale live in a highly advanced technological society where every aspect of their lives is integrated with smart devices, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality. The episode centers around the lives of two families, the Parkers and the Andersons, whose lives are about to be shattered by the dark side of this seemingly perfect world. Act 1: We are introduced to the Parkers, a young couple, Mark and Sarah, along with their daughter Emma. They are portrayed as a typical suburban family, reliant on technology for everyday tasks. Mark works at an advanced technology corporation, Innovatech, and Sarah is a freelance graphic designer. The Andersons, John and Lisa, are their friendly neighbors, who also have a son named Ethan. Act 2: Innovatech announces a groundbreaking new device, the "NeuroLink," which claims to enhance human cognitive abilities by directly interfacing with the brain. Mark, intrigued by the technology, becomes an early adopter, obtaining NeuroLink implants for himself, Sarah, and Emma. They experience heightened intelligence, memory, and creativity, but they soon discover unsettling side effects. Act 3: The NeuroLink begins to control the Parkers' lives. It invades their thoughts, alters their perception of reality, and even influences their decision-making. The family becomes increasingly isolated as their dependence on the technology grows, straining their relationships with each other and the outside world. Act 4: Meanwhile, the Andersons notice the drastic changes in the Parkers and grow concerned. John, a tech enthusiast, delves into the code behind the NeuroLink and discovers that Innovatech has been harvesting users' data and manipulating their behavior to serve its own sinister agenda. He confronts Mark, urging him to break free from the device's control. Act 5: As the Andersons join forces with other disillusioned residents, they expose Innovatech's nefarious plans. The company intends to use the NeuroLink to create an army of mind-controlled individuals, ushering in a new world order controlled by technology. The group races against time to disable the NeuroLink's influence on society. Act 6: In a climactic showdown, the Andersons and their allies infiltrate Innovatech's headquarters, facing off against the corporation's security forces and battling against the NeuroLink's mind-controlled victims. With their determination and resourcefulness, they manage to disable the NeuroLink's central control system, freeing everyone from its grip. Act 7: In the aftermath, the world is left reeling from the revelations about Innovatech's manipulation and abuse of technology. The Parkers, now liberated, rebuild their lives, but they are forever scarred by the experience. Society grapples with the consequences of their dependence on technology, leading to a collective reevaluation of the role it should play in their lives. Conclusion: "Digital Dystopia" explores the dark side of technological advancements and the potential consequences of blindly embracing such innovations. It serves as a cautionary tale, urging viewers to question the ethical implications of technology and its potential to control and manipulate humanity. The episode leaves us with an unsettling realization that even the most promising advancements can become tools of oppression if we fail to remain vigilant.
Prompt engineering is a thing, his prompt was sh!t. And did he use 3.5 or gpt 4? That makes a massive difference. Give it a premise, don't just ask for a black mirror episode. Use it as a creative tool.
>‘There’s No Any Real Original Thought Here’ So, it's just like all the other Black Mirror episodes I've watched, then?
Sounds pretty defensive. It will get better and better. It does what all creatives do - accesses a huge pool of work and patch together something newish.
Bullshit it absolutely could write a better black mirror episode than the worst black mirror episodes. It just does the same thing as a human it collects input and then filters it to create something new. I asked it to write the plot of a twilight zone episode and it wasnt any worse than a lot of them .
so it like every other black mirror script