Will machines that are capable of producing novels which are crafted according to an algorithm designed to appeal...

in theory yes.
Here how neural nets work :
imagine a dog and you want to train it to fetch a stick. Every time it does it right you give him a cookie, and every time it does something else you beat it up. Same logic with machines except they dont need to stop to eat or sleep and can repeat atempts to fech efficiently for as long as you want to. right now we got : robots beating chess players, robots beating e-sport players. And if we feed those AI all the literature in the world they might do it better than us.

ok but you just broke my concentration when you said about giving the dog a cookie. They don't eat cookies because it's bad for them.

good lord

They do eat cookies even though it's bad for them.
Fleshies are stupid.

Humans aren't even close to developing AI technology. But yeah, it's possible.

Really? I thought Zuckerborg was going to look into it?

>designed to appeal absolutely to human emotions
This isn't how any of this works. Do you read a book like an ordered sequence of "emotions"? That's not even how anyone perceives music.
>everyone wants to read emotive novels
You can't break literary merit into increments that an algorithm could determine. Literature simply doesn't occur in a way that's measurable by EEG or fMRI. A machine would need a complete understanding of the associations actually made in a written work in order to produce the pleasure of the text. The written word negates its own medium to express its signifieds. Working by examining the medium alone with no consideration for what is actually represented by the complete text is going to fail. How do you expect a computer to write a great novel if most human brains are too dull to read a novel over years?

>But yeah, it's possible.
That's not a sure thing. Is a true AI necessarily conscious?

They will be eventually.

However, people take this to mean that machines will take over humans, when that's not the case at all. It just means that fiction writing is less talent-based and more mechanical a process than we originally thought. Also, machines will never replace non-fiction writing until they can think just like us, in other words, they are inseparable from us (not even machines anymore, since we are also machines in a sense).

Zuckerberg is a billionaire, not a computer genius.

'Consciousness' isn't defined in physics, and that's simply because it can't be defined. People (including myself) are desperate to describe their thoughts in a physical manner, but this has never been accomplished before.

The irony is that everything we see and interpret around us--all of it is technically our consciousness and not the physical world. The physical world exists in our consciousness which likewise exists in the physical world.

But there's nothing magical or wondrous going on here. Of course everything is all in our head because only complicated biological machines like humans are capable of receiving sensory information and interpreting the physical world out of it. And we are just humans.

This is Veeky Forums, people will read your post even if you do not include some random picture.

Dumb post

HOLY SHIT DUBS BRAH LMAO

...

>fleshies

dude no

Are there any great black novelists or artists?

Are you a great novelist or artist?

MY RACE HAS SUCCESSFUL WEALTHY PEOPLE AND YOUR DOESN'T

FEELS SO GOOOOOOD

DUDE WE WUZ NOVELISTS AND ARTISTS
I'm white, by the way. Taking credit for the achievements of other members of your race, country, etc, deserved to be mocked. It's really quite pathetic.

They are my accomplishments because I uphold the reputation of the white race, unlike Jews (like you) who hate white people for being better.

Jews aren't white, shitskin.

> uphold the reputation of the white race
> despicable incel shitposter on Veeky Forums

>uphold the reputation of the white race

>They are my accomplishments

by the time AI can surpass our imagination, empathy and understand the human condition, we'll all be dead

>i did this

HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

Creative artists are literally future proof, AI can't do shit!

Machado de Assis is one of the greatest

Pushkin

>he's not going to join my new luddite movement and not destroy technology but just completely abandon it and return to an agrarian America because everything after it was a mistake
Join me in the sun, fag

Well they didn't succeed at making music I like so it's not that absolute is it? In order to appeal to everyone it has to cater to all tastes. Good luck because "experimental" is also a taste and they couldn't make experimental music but based off of the already creatively established footprints of a human as a guideline for what is "good" experimentally and what is "bad". Or just let it go at complete random and maybe it will compose something experimental that isn't drek according to my senses. A monky nailing a screw into a board will get it in eventually.

Good point. I hate modern Pop too, but, as Mick Jagger showed, all good rock songs have a similar structure and beat. It's quite sad, really, but that's just reality.

I can't even say I hate it because it's catchy as fuck and has a good rhythm, but it's just that I don't like those things. I like instrumental music and long, meandering "crescendo-core" as some people might call it, and 9-22 minute songs are definitely not vogue, nor do I have reason to believe such minority interest would be catered to in the world of The Algorithm.

Mmm. 'Hate' is probably too strong of a term. I probably just dislike pop culture generally. youtube.com/watch?v=MHpmHhi1Rxk is the sort of music I listen to mostly.

where do i find friends like you

That google dude predicts the singularity will happen by 2045

Shut up psued. Bots are comin whether you like it or not

bots are coming but they'll never be able to take away the arts

all humans will be dead before then

False

>not embracing posthumanism
>letting AI take over

lol, y'all need some Elon Musk

Just like theyll never be able to beat a human at chess?

any logical task can be done by AI, no doubt

the day a bot has imagination, empathy, comedic timing, and a unique understanding of the human condition is the day we're living in a matrix

Its not even AI though, its just number cruching. The technology has existted for 50 years, its just beer now. Truly amazing AI will be a computer than can work out 2 + 2 or translate a sentence with good grammar. A lot of the current 'AI' is just number crunching dressed up in verbose language. There's no logical pathway from a chess program to a language program. MIT made a translation program in he 50's thats still used for online translators today. Zero actual progress other than it being faster. Most people who dont understand this believe that, like their iPhone, every part of science and tech is on an infinite arc of evolution. In realiy it just aint like that. Thats how these con-artist kickstarters make their dough: look, heres a thing that exists, if we just do enough 'research' at it we'll make aliens.

sure, i can see that... wikipedia contributors & textbook writers have to find something else

but i cannot, anyway shape or form, see how an AI will ever be able to create good fiction or write creatively

scientist don't even have a complete understanding of the human brain today, much is theorized and there are always outliers... creative output is something that cannot be programmed into an AI, ever

it's more plausible that AI deems all human life unnecessary and literature obsolete should it self-develop

You sound super foolish.

>im a special snowflake and my beautiful creative mind can never be matched

that's okay, as long as i'm right

You have no evidence that you are. At all

human creativity can’t be easily imitated. there is no current trajectory for mimicing genius with ai like joyce or nabokov. for now the best you people can hope for is bad imitations of rupi kuar

cute, i can do that too
>i have no creativity and when AI deems those with creative aspects worthy of life and others not, I'll be dead

good enough

neither do you, the evidence we both have access to is that nobody understands what makes a creatively apt mind

Easily no. But AI will keep getting better. Its a matter of time

Nice ad hominem you retards, try a real counter argument next time.

yes, a matter of time before our AI overlord deems those without a genius IQ or creative aptitude useless and orders a cleansing for all useless humans such as yourself

see how easy it is to make shit up?

>AI will keep getting better
expert systems aren’t AI and these are quite rudimentary systems
>will keep getting better
to a point, what threshold does it stop at?
>better
faster and more efficient doesn’t entail creativity, genius, insight or anything human/sapient user

your professors and the tech magnates have you wrapped around their little finger

Nah I'll definitely say I hate songs that say "I like when good girls go bad" and whatever Xanax-abusing, lean-sipping mumble rappers are propagating. But that's what our urban youth consider to their taste now. I'll just listen to my same albums from the last 15 years and stick myself in a time capsule like every other ornery "that's not music!" old man. I don't really mind I guess.
youtube.com/watch?v=3FIiCqNSVfk

I have to agree with the dissenters in this thread. I've come to realize that AI are more like animals than being able to be something even remotely close to being human.

Take for instance a dog - a dog has a set list of instincts that it knows from genetic memory. Also, a dog is trainable: it can be told what to do and how to act. Also, since this dog is not sentient, we can agree that it does not have a free will since all that the dog does is a product of what it is told to do by genetics or humans.

A computer abides by a set list of rules that are "inherently programmed" in the computer: mathematics. The computer can be told what to do through programming or through user interfaces. Since the computer is inherently told what to do by mathematical concepts or by humans, we can assume that it does not have a free will and therefore does not have sentience.

What you seem to really talking about then is developing free will. The types of AI out there right now are called neural nets, or things that use machine/deep learning. Basically you produce a bunch of random mutations of AI and they do their thing, the bad ones get weeded out, and progressively over time, they end up excelling at what they are told to do.

However, this works great for video games like Mario or maybe even creating something that resembles human speech somewhat, but how do you propose to just point a neural net at the free will problem and have it learn that? Not even we seem to be able to comprehend what that is (or if free will is just an illusion, so therefore the thing that separates us from animals is the illusion of free will) and if we are not smarter than the problem - as with everything in programming - it will be an impossible task. Or, there is the possibility that we could create a computer that is so fast that it could deep learn free will from the entire universe of content created by everyone that ever existed, but, what, do you propose being able to solve the 64-disk Tower of Hanoi in one lifetime too? Get real man.

it's always nice to read from a real intellectual

If you consider lit as a form of expression, then no, by definition, unless you are capable of producing an AI with emotions.

Pseudorandom generators are already capable of creating semi-coherent texts by rehashing works in a database. If I remember correctly there is a 'bullshit generator' on the internets that is supposed to emulate a politician's speech.

But is there any literary merit in that? You may find entertainment and even meaning in such a piece of text, but it would be your work, not the machine's. The machine didn't intentionally convey any of that. There's not the usual connection between author and reader, just the illusion of it.

i like you, please read jean-pierre dupuy and help stop techno-hell

>in the same way as machines replaced humans in the Pop music industry

???

What music are you listening to that is made by algorithms?

He is not. He should read more biology, especially about non-human animals.

>Will machines be able to write stories
Yes
>Will machines be able to replace writers
Not completely. Until you can quantify emotion in a way that a machine can craft a story to inspire that emotion, humans will be able to stay relevant due to being able to intuit these things based on prior experience. The closest we will get for a long time is scripts that take tropes and storylines and swap out parts and reorganize them in ways that are appealing to someone who has no experience determining their methodology. By the time a robot can replace a writer completely humans will be past the point of caring about literature.

It's literally just a matter of inputs and outputs. All phenomena, even the chemical reactions that result in you enjoying a novel, could be studied. So it's just a matter of making an AI that knows the details and can exploit them.

The real question is "how long will it take for this to happen" which also just leads to pointless speculation. By the time AI can do that, i.e. human brains + how to create art that appeals to them is understood, will novels even be relevant anymore? Another who knows/cares.

>Additionally, publishers use ghostwriters to write new books for established series where the 'author' is a pseudonym. For example, the purported authors of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries, "Carolyn Keene" and "Franklin W. Dixon", respectively, are actually pseudonyms for a series of ghostwriters who write books in the same style using a template of basic information about the book's characters and their fictional universe (names, dates, speech patterns), and about the tone and style that are expected in the book (for more information, see the articles on pseudonyms or pen names). In addition, ghostwriters are often given copies of several of the previous books in the series to help them match the style.
This is what the "AI" will be capable of. They have robots that do similar things with Rembrandt, using his style and techniques to make robo OC. They're not going to be able to make a Tolstoyevskybot any time soon, but genre trash that is super heavy on tropes is probably already being sold from them.

They'll be able to of course but humans are essentially narcissists in the sense that even if you have a million masterpieces written by a machine, we'll only read one or two then go back to reading stuff written by other humans, or at least that we believe is written by humans, because we feel we can relate. Literature is about the human condition, if it's written by an AI it will be false even if it's better- even *because* it's better. AI can create photorealistic images but we still spend more time looking at images made by humans.

It sure beats substance retar- i mean dualism.

Machines haven't replaced humans in the pop music industry. Songs are still written by people and at least partially performed by them. This is the kind of ignorance of the recording process which I cannot abide; it's not like people just feed parameters to a computer program and it spits out a hit song. Even music which is entirely electronic involves the hands-on manipulation of sound and the placement of musical elements by humans, with a few exceptions. Is a novel typed using a word processor written by a computer?

Dumas?

>Presupposes computability of the intellect, please check your metaphysics at the door
Please identify the specific human behaviors that exist beyond the realm of physical causality.

Good luck telling an AI what counts as literature let alone good one. Even an AI 'painter''s creator admits that it is not creating art and does it like a craftsman would

Question mal posee. We don't know the quiddity of those "behaviors," so we can't say what they are or aren't. The fact that you call them behaviors, a vague as fuck term that could be replaced by a dozen others and gain no clarity, should alert you to the problem with imposing any conclusions on them.

>People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels.

You're talking about soft AI and are correct but hard AI is more difficult to predict because we don't really know yet. We don't know if it'll even be possible, or something we can comprehend.

the critic is the true artist anyway, so who cares?

we're about as far from this level of ai as the automotive industry is from flying cars. stop listening to elon musk.

how do you write this:
youtube.com/watch?v=xAQFJ1YpFaI

why is modern music such such hot garbage, why can nobody match the emotional and impact of a classical composer such as beethoven?

Those are quantifiable, objective qualities. Machines are lucky music has some objective form to it; Rhythm, notes, tuning, music is many mathematical equations turned into art, and that's how a machine can understand it and make more of it. Literature is an experience. A machine has no experience.

Do you nerds really think the human brain is some divine invention thats not imitatable?

Literary merit is completely subjective

I don't think it entirely will.

As a translator, I expect it to go the pop way. It may dominate the "beach-time-killer" mainstream, but the """good""" literature will still be irreplacable. A computer could get a topic to write a song about, but the nuances you get in novels, that shit goes deep.

Sources: I am currently trying to pass a LitAnalysis class.

True, but literary conciseness is much more empirical. It would take a computer a whole lot of computing to maintain a register throughout a book. At best, it'd look like several books stiched together.

I'm a translator, it's really an everyday ocurrence that someone writes several sentences in one register and after he writes a fucking bloodclot sentence pon the paypa. Like I did.

Sure but who will give a shit
reading novels is about connecting with other people
robots are fucking gay and not people, so who fucking cares about any """art""" produced by them

We have flying vehicles theyre just not cost effective

That’s subjective and you sound like the biggest psued in this thread

>It would take a computer a whole lot of computing to maintain a register throughout a book
True. Were very far away from that
>At best, it'd look like several books stiched together
Theres no reason it cant surpass that. I very much agree with this user though
The same way people want hand crafted artisan goods there will always be a market for human created art. Even if it becomes a niche market