Someone still has to choose what to prompt and I don’t think a boilerplate “make me a marketing plan then write pages for it” will be enough to stand out. And I’d bet that the cyborg writers using AI will outcompete the purely AI ones.
(I also was just using it as a point to show how being identified as AI-made is already starting to have a negative connotation. Maybe the future is one where everything is an AI but no one admits it.)
> And I’d bet that the cyborg writers using AI will outcompete the purely AI ones.
In the early days of chess engines there were similar hopes for cyborg chess, whereby a human and engine would team up to be better than an engine alone. What actually happened was that the engines quickly got so good that the expected value of human intervention was negative - the engine crunching so much information than the human ever could.
Marketing is also a kind of game. Will humans always be better at it? We have a poor track record so far.
I'd pay extra for writing with some kind of "no AI used" certification, especially for art or information
Reality and especially human interaction are basically the complete opposite.
EDIT: As in, it can make really good derivative works. But it will always lag behind a human that has been in real life situations of the time and experienced being a human throughout them. It won't be able to hit the subtle notes that we crave in art.
It can absolutely do that, even today - you could update the weights after every interaction. The only reason why we don't do it is because it's insanely computationally expensive.
This could change with varying results.
What is average quality? For some it’s a massive upgrade. For others it’s a step down. For the experienced it’s seeing through it.
Every model has a faint personality, but since the personality gets "mass produced" any personality or writing style makes it easier to detect it as AI rather than harder. e.g. em dashes, etc.
But reducing personality doesn't help either because then the writing becomes insipid — slop.
Human writing has more variance, but it's not "temperature" (i.e. token level variance), it's per-human variance. Every writer has their own individual style. While it's certainly possible to achieve a unique writing style with LLMs through fine-tuning it's not cost effective for something like ChatGPT, so the only control is through the system prompt, which is a blunt instrument.
It is a query/input and response format. Which can be modeled to simulate a conversation.
It can be a search engine that responds on the inputs provided, plus the system, account, project, user prompts (as constraints/filters) before the current turn being input.
The result can sure look like magic.
It’s still a statistically present response format based on the average of its training corpus.
Take that average and then add a user to it with their varying range and then the beauty varies.
LLMs can have many ways to explain the same thing more than 1 can be valid sometimes; other times not.
