by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner
One of the things I find myself pondering as people continue to play around with OpenAI ChatGPT to create this or that creative knit knack is the innate value of human creativity. Is it possible that, just like in the Blue Runner universe that “real” animals had more innate value than a synthetic animal, so, too, in the near future examples of “human generated art” will be given more weight, more value than that created by a non-human actor.
But that’s not assured.
Humans are, by nature, lazy and stupid and the capitalist imperative would be one of, lulz, if a non-human actor can think up and produce a movie that’s just good enough to be watchable, why employ humans ever again? But at the moment, I can’t game things out — it could go either way.
It is very easy to plot out a very dystopian future where the vast majority of profitable, marketable art, be it movies, TV or novels is produced by non-human actors and that’s that. “Artisanal” art will be of high quality but treated with indifference by the average media consumer. It’s kind of dark, yet I’m simply taking what we know of human nature and economics and gaming it out in to a future where chatbots and their eventual successors AGI can generate reasonably high quality art at the push of a button.
It could be that there will be a lot of future shock as we transition into our AGI future, but once things sort of settle out that “real” art, generated by humans will gradually, eventually begin to dominate the marketplace of art and all that will change is the context of its creation.
Or something. Who knows.
