The bad news for fans of American TV shows is that the Writers Guild of America members are going on strike. Like any regular employee, from time to time screenwriters start their “download rights”. They last did this 15 years ago, but time is ticking, inflation, increased workload due to the success of streaming channels – in general, the usual union requirements. One thing is unusual – this time the screenwriters need to have full control over the use of artificial intelligence when creating scenarios. Active experiments with incorporating AI-generated texts into the work of a screenwriter scare people who are not so afraid that bots will replace them, but lower the prices of their work. They also demand that texts generated by the neural network should not be considered literary material, because there is nothing independently created in them, just “a burp of what these networks feed on.”
But as humiliating as it may be to screenwriters and designers, copywriters and marketers, it’s all long since their products are increasingly reminiscent of robotic texts. With the development of circulation culture, originality is gradually giving way to format. The form dictates its own laws, and the stricter it is, the easier it is to work with the content – to reproduce, distribute, connect. The packaging should be standard, but the contents should also match the packaging.
In the end, in an attempt to fit their imagination into the format, the quality standards, the creators themselves, who are increasingly asked to produce content, become a kind of bot, listing the options already determined in the culture. Artificial intelligence will do this faster. What it cannot do is create something completely original, fresh, new. But even 90% of employees can’t do it, so they have something to fear – if not now, then in the future, when AI learns not only to rank options, but also to take the next step in synthesizing new information. Until now, AI has only been able to mimic human cognitive functions such as learning and problem solving. But because AI is trainable, it will be able to overcome emotions – the most human traits. Well, not exactly emotions, but empathy, sympathy, who will be able to understand not only logic, but also the mood of a person, maybe not so sensitive, but at the level of an ordinary user.
When AI beats a person in chess or Go, people explain it by the characteristics of such games, while computer games that are much closer to reality, such as Dota, are still very difficult for AI. And artificial intelligence is certainly not yet possible to understand that the same person can perceive the same information in different ways depending on their emotional state.
But what never imitates neural networks is, I think, a human trait like belief, belief. However, machine thinking is systemic, as any action of AI comes from sorting combinations. However, as each of us has repeatedly seen from our own experience, a person is not a completely rational being and very often and unpredictably acts contrary to his own benefit, effectiveness and benefit.
The words allegedly uttered by Tertullian: “I believe because it is absurd” – many refer to the paradoxes of religious belief, in which there is the idea of \u200b\u200bthe incomprehensibility of a higher power outside of reason and man. experience. But they can also be attributed to the most everyday actions of ordinary people. By the way, it explains the lack of humor in artificial intelligence. The joke seems to be successful when the change in direct meaning happens unexpectedly. And if we know the algorithm of the joke, it is not laughter, laughter is a reaction to the unexpectedness and strangeness of the action.
But there is much in human behavior that is not determined by reason besides humor. For example, there are people today who believe that the earth is flat. And these are not dark natives living in the myth, but highly educated scientists graduated from universities who believe that all observations and facts explaining the spherical shape of the earth are at some point manipulation or conscientious error. And the world looks flat, just like a ball, optics deteriorate. And, according to their beliefs, they begin to create theories of a flat Earth, pass this knowledge on to others and do strange things – organize an expedition to Antarctica to make sure that the boundary of the disk passes there …
Some people believe in a global conspiracy of elites or Freemasons, while others believe in biological weapons against ethnic groups. But you never know who believes what with conviction and earnestness. In signs, evil eye, black cat, husband standing. And the interesting thing is that no matter how much truth is brought to them to disprove their theory, nothing convinces them. Faith is the most powerful mechanism of human thought. It doesn’t need any knowledge prerequisites, it just needs a desire that motivates a person to defend their version of what’s going on.
Climbing to the heights of science, remember what kind of clothes your relatives and friends celebrated on May 1 50 years ago, how they fervently discussed happy schoolchildren … , sold out long ago – there may be several polar views, and no one is inferior to anyone. It can come to a quarrel, and certainly to quarrels and insults. Psychologists explain this type of human stubbornness for quite objective reasons: when receiving information that contradicts our picture of the world, our brain really experiences unpleasant sensations similar to pain and begins to defend itself, blocking contradictory facts. This is how the rebound effect, or “rebound effect,” works: Once you start imposing a particular view that you don’t like, you begin to resist and become deaf to any evidence of someone else’s hypothesis. Moreover, you produce opposing views with a special passion. Can a neural network do this? No, I don’t think it makes much sense.
So artificial intelligence cannot replace a person with contradictions and these are the basis of creativity. A genius is not a chess player, he does not think, the nature of his insights cannot be known because it does not make sense. And it is unlikely that a person will create an unreasonable machine.
The brain is not just the mind, it is more than the mind, so it is out of competition in the sense of a complex and contradictory world, losing in speed and amount of data. So average scenarios can be based on AI, but for good scenarios you should still get a person.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.