Are people using generative AI backwards ?
For example, lots of people AI-generate text and try to publish it as paper-books on Amazon, which amusingly clogs up Amazon's pipes. In essence they use new AI computer technology to make more content, faster, for an old paper interface technology.
What people could be doing instead is make the content for a book them selves and then train a limited AI on that. Resulting in "ai-books" that you can talk to, ask it questions and what not. Which would make AI the interface for the content instead of the author.
A human book author combines 2 types of inputs.
1. all the books the author read.
2 all the experiences outside the textual book-world, aka the "real world".
AI only gets the first type of input, because AI has no experiences in the "real world".
If AI replaces all human authors, there won't be any new experiential inputs. Shit will stall for a long time until AI get advanced and corporal enough to have it's own experiences. It would make vast quantities of new works from a stagnant source.
The AI-interface-book that you can ask direct questions, is obviously most useful for text-books that you query for knowledge. But if would also offer new ways of story telling for fiction, like letting you talk directly to various characters.
Instead of using AI to make more quantities of books, shouldn't we be using it to expand the medium ?
>like letting you talk directly to various characters.
Great, let humans unlearn the ability to have fictional conversations with fictional characters in their own mind (aka daydreaming) or roleplaying characters in chat or LARP and replace it with a bot that doesn't even understand what it is talking about and whose every word is controlled by some crazy transhumanist silicon valley dipshit nazi eugenicist technocrats.https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Also this (don't let the misleading title trigger you):https://www.corbettreport.com/what-is-the-trans-agenda-questions-for-corbett-video/