This is a very interesting article. I daylight as a copywriter for a medtech company that develops software to help neurosurgeons plan their brain surgeries. Back in the late 80s/early 90s when this technology was first introduced, those neurosurgeons using this planning software were seen as less-than because they had to "rely" on technology. Nowadays, there is pretty much not a neurosurgeon alive who doesn't use this kind of planning technology because, ultimately, it results in better care for patients.
But that's medicine, not art.
I understand your argument that "AI is coming so we should learn how to wield this tool before it kills us all", and I do believe their is value in understanding the "enemy".
I don't however, agree with the sentiment that we MUST embrace it. Why? What if instead we, as a collective, simply refuse to integrate this technology into our artistic practice? What if we assemble and agree together that we will not use AI in our work?
You argue above: "Writers use AI to compress development from months to weeks"... But again, I ask why? In whose interest is this, truly? Why does an artistic practice need to be artificially accelerated? The answer is almost always: Because the people making the most money want to make more. "Efficiency" in business is almost always demanded by those in power to ensure they pay those they employ the least amount of money to increase their own profit.
Your second argument, "Executives test concepts with audiences before spending millions", has a similar underlying premise: Save executives money [to maximize their profits]".
These arguments both treat filmmaking as a business (which it undeniably is currently, I agree).
What about instead we stop treating film like a business and treat it as an artistic practice: One that takes time, room to breathe, and needs to sustain the artists who are responsible for its creation in order for it to have meaning for humanity?
Welk hello! I am all in what do you need!? Im unemployed creative writer and self learned computer tech / AI nerd.... Been struggling with artistic demons (!? Illegal Substances?!) but then same time ive created bussinessea, applications, web pages, videos, stories, yt channels, blogs....etc...
So if ya need crazy finnish man to help....Im your man.
I think in life everything should be done right. That includes humans and AI created or played out together, not where humans vs AI. I think your concept is an important one. Not working this way could mess up many achievements for mankind as such. I use chat GPT but have been doing so to help write poetry for some years. Its not a new concept. It has been around for some time, but not found on the web under chatGPT.
By using Ai with humans we are more likely to include all facets of creativity giving us humans a place at the future table with Ai protocol.
I don’t think I have a suggestion on which problem should be solved first but I agree with on all points here and am highly interested in what you’re doing!
That is an EXCELLENT question. Ultimately, I think someone is going to have to design software that “runs” the virtual writers’ room. In the meantime:
- I use the tabs in google docs. After each response (from Claude, from ChatGPT, etc.) I enter that LLM’s draft into a tab (“from Claude” etc.) I read each of them, decide which one is the “foundation,” and then revise / copy / paste based on the input from the others.
Inevitably, in the course of doing this, I end up opening a tab labeled “new version,” that is a rethinking of the entire thing. I think that’s the best case for the virtual writers’ room — after reading multiple “takes,” you realize you have your own work to do. You do that and start all over again.
- ChatGPT’s desktop for Mac OS doesn’t have a quick click to upload google docs. I need to download the doc as a word file and upload that. UGH.
- Finally… in the end, I’m pretty much relying on my own memory and instinct to remember which version I like. At some point, you need to just go with a version and move on.
- BTW — chatGPT, true to its character as a really annoying recent USC film school grad — has offered to be my “organizer” for all of the LLMs. I told it to go get my car detailed.
a pain point with using multiples models simultaneously is versioning: how to keep each model up to date? Is it an exercise in meticulous copy/pasting and good labeling, or is there a more automated approach to feeding multiple models the same content? I know Claude can read updates to Google docs in real time. Can one google doc feed several AI's? Can one model be the organizer of versions of your work?
This is a very interesting article. I daylight as a copywriter for a medtech company that develops software to help neurosurgeons plan their brain surgeries. Back in the late 80s/early 90s when this technology was first introduced, those neurosurgeons using this planning software were seen as less-than because they had to "rely" on technology. Nowadays, there is pretty much not a neurosurgeon alive who doesn't use this kind of planning technology because, ultimately, it results in better care for patients.
But that's medicine, not art.
I understand your argument that "AI is coming so we should learn how to wield this tool before it kills us all", and I do believe their is value in understanding the "enemy".
I don't however, agree with the sentiment that we MUST embrace it. Why? What if instead we, as a collective, simply refuse to integrate this technology into our artistic practice? What if we assemble and agree together that we will not use AI in our work?
You argue above: "Writers use AI to compress development from months to weeks"... But again, I ask why? In whose interest is this, truly? Why does an artistic practice need to be artificially accelerated? The answer is almost always: Because the people making the most money want to make more. "Efficiency" in business is almost always demanded by those in power to ensure they pay those they employ the least amount of money to increase their own profit.
Your second argument, "Executives test concepts with audiences before spending millions", has a similar underlying premise: Save executives money [to maximize their profits]".
These arguments both treat filmmaking as a business (which it undeniably is currently, I agree).
What about instead we stop treating film like a business and treat it as an artistic practice: One that takes time, room to breathe, and needs to sustain the artists who are responsible for its creation in order for it to have meaning for humanity?
Welk hello! I am all in what do you need!? Im unemployed creative writer and self learned computer tech / AI nerd.... Been struggling with artistic demons (!? Illegal Substances?!) but then same time ive created bussinessea, applications, web pages, videos, stories, yt channels, blogs....etc...
So if ya need crazy finnish man to help....Im your man.
I think in life everything should be done right. That includes humans and AI created or played out together, not where humans vs AI. I think your concept is an important one. Not working this way could mess up many achievements for mankind as such. I use chat GPT but have been doing so to help write poetry for some years. Its not a new concept. It has been around for some time, but not found on the web under chatGPT.
By using Ai with humans we are more likely to include all facets of creativity giving us humans a place at the future table with Ai protocol.
I don’t think I have a suggestion on which problem should be solved first but I agree with on all points here and am highly interested in what you’re doing!
That is an EXCELLENT question. Ultimately, I think someone is going to have to design software that “runs” the virtual writers’ room. In the meantime:
- I use the tabs in google docs. After each response (from Claude, from ChatGPT, etc.) I enter that LLM’s draft into a tab (“from Claude” etc.) I read each of them, decide which one is the “foundation,” and then revise / copy / paste based on the input from the others.
Inevitably, in the course of doing this, I end up opening a tab labeled “new version,” that is a rethinking of the entire thing. I think that’s the best case for the virtual writers’ room — after reading multiple “takes,” you realize you have your own work to do. You do that and start all over again.
- ChatGPT’s desktop for Mac OS doesn’t have a quick click to upload google docs. I need to download the doc as a word file and upload that. UGH.
- Finally… in the end, I’m pretty much relying on my own memory and instinct to remember which version I like. At some point, you need to just go with a version and move on.
- BTW — chatGPT, true to its character as a really annoying recent USC film school grad — has offered to be my “organizer” for all of the LLMs. I told it to go get my car detailed.
a pain point with using multiples models simultaneously is versioning: how to keep each model up to date? Is it an exercise in meticulous copy/pasting and good labeling, or is there a more automated approach to feeding multiple models the same content? I know Claude can read updates to Google docs in real time. Can one google doc feed several AI's? Can one model be the organizer of versions of your work?