#but it certainly is possible that normalising their use as a drafting tool could narrow the ideaspace that's being drawn on

[loki-zen]

It isn't the same of course, and I've not been making this analogy, but the generative AI that's seeing use is governed by restrictions on "dangerous content" put in place by unnamed unaccountable employees of the for-profit corporations that control them.

I think this really is an important consideration for the use of these programs that should be talked about more.

i keep seeing people compare AI to the machine-generated books in 1984, and i don't think it's entirely fair for 2 main reasons:

in 1984, media is controlled by the state. the books are not just written by machines, they are specifically engineered with an agenda to control the masses. current AI books may be slop, but they are not malevolent slop. at least, not any moreso than any other corporate garbage. we should be paying attention to what propaganda may be in these books, but then, that's true of normal books too.

in 1984, EVERY book is written this way, which is what makes it an effective form of control. i truly don't think we're in danger of that here. AI books ARE slop, and are never going to replace real writers as long as we have freedom of expression. they are getting churned out now because they are a novelty, and cheap to produce; they aren't really seriously competing with actual intentional books. or preventing writers from making new art, because writers LIKE making new art.

the problems in 1984 were never the specific tools, it's the system of oppression and how it uses those tools. AI books may superficially be similar to what's described here, but they just aren't part of a wider system that can have that sort of impact. they're just kinda. there. being bad books. we can survive bad books.