ChatGPT For World Building?

[Fyri]

I no longer prescribe to the overworked and underpaid notion. In some places and situations, this may be true, but it is far from universal. Except, of course, almost everybody tends to think they are underpaid and overworked. The only person I ever met who said they were underworked and overpaid was a prof. And he might've been drunk.

Well. Public grade school teachers are, for sure, underpaid, at least in the US. And then, I'd hazard to say that at this point it is very possible that most people  are underpaid in the US. Prices keep rising and the wages, for the most part, don't follow.

It's hard to find quality help in schools. The people who actually want to do a good job get overwhelmed (understaffing is also an issue) and the pay is not high enough, so they quit. Then you get people who don't care to fill the hole, making it all the more difficult for the ones who do care.

 

[Finchbearer]

Well. Public grade school teachers are, for sure, underpaid, at least in the US. And then, I'd hazard to say that at this point it is very possible that most people  are underpaid in the US. Prices keep rising and the wages, for the most part, don't follow.

It's hard to find quality help in schools. The people who actually want to do a good job get overwhelmed (understaffing is also an issue) and the pay is not high enough, so they quit. Then you get people who don't care to fill the hole, making it all the more difficult for the ones who do care.

My husband works in a school and I can say that this rings true for the state education system in the UK too.

Chances are if you’re already underpaid, which many people are across a wide range of jobs and professions, then I think chances are that they also feel consequently overworked, stressed and under-supported. That leads to a poorer quality of life and it has a knock on effect for society at large.

The children are the ones most affected by the ill-efficiency of the system and they are our future - so suffice to say that being underpaid and overworked has long lasting consequences.

Too much money gets put into big corporations that want to make a fat profit whilst education, healthcare and other key professions get thrown to the wayside and everyone wonders why there are soaring rates of depression and anxiety amongst mostly the younger generation…

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Eeeyeah, spot on, but it's the quality of teachers not just the pay that makes them not underpaid in so many cases, LMAO. But there are a lot of layers to the failure of schools these days, but even at a "Blue Ribbon" school, I am totally underwhelmed. And when they get more money, they seem to hire administrators instead of teachers. I know one lady who retired as a colonel in the Air Force and decided to take on teaching because she thought she had something to offer. She quit after the first year for a variety of reasons, including just not feeling safe.

Well. Public grade school teachers are, for sure, underpaid, at least in the US. And then, I'd hazard to say that at this point it is very possible that most people  are underpaid in the US. Prices keep rising and the wages, for the most part, don't follow.

It's hard to find quality help in schools. The people who actually want to do a good job get overwhelmed (understaffing is also an issue) and the pay is not high enough, so they quit. Then you get people who don't care to fill the hole, making it all the more difficult for the ones who do care.

 

[Devor]

Hey all - I just wanted to remind everyone that we come here in part to get away from political stuff, and the debate over teacher pay would count as political for a lot of people. So let's try to stay on topic.

 

[_Michael_]

None of that accounts for authors who, while not lacking the talent, simply lack the manpower to pull together something like a Player's Hand Book? There's no way that one single person can pull off such a tome; most PHBs of any company are the work of literally dozens of people. Yet, there are some who would still try to capture lightning in a bottle and create their own world.

I don't know dozens of people. I don't have dozens of friends who'd be willing to work long hours on a pet project that might never take off, but will still result in something cool and unique. I don't have limitless time and resources to pull off all the statistical work and revisions, all the typographical revisions, and all the editorial revisions. Nor do I have the talent of an editor who has read literally thousands of manuscripts and has a "feel" for good writing as a result.

It is said that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a subject. Who has that much time unless you're 16 and not in college yet? World builders take well-known shortcuts by incorporating the ideas of others and putting their own spin on them. Using an AI to do something like scan a text for typographical errors or fill in expository description after being given the meat of a subject, is not "cheating," and doesn't in any way detract from the work since the AI is being used, not to generate new ideas, but to parse and refine ones that already exist in the mind of the author.

Does AI come up with stuff that surprises us? Of course. And sometimes, we are able to use that as a seed to generate yet more ideas. But the idea that the AI is doing the heavy lifting is laughable. We're talking world-building here. Most authors won't want to share the glory with an AI and so will only use the AI minimally or in very narrow ways. Using an AI to generate everything, however, is patently absurd, because it truly will be derivative at that point.

At best, AI is a sounding board to use like authors use whiteboards with a built-in encyclopedic functionality. Throw ideas at it, press "Frappé," and pour into a whiskey tumbler to sip and ruminate over as a generative process to fuel your own engines of creation.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

10000 hours is a myth. Like most myths, there is some basis in reality, but I don't buy it for a second. Plus lots of people who can't write for shit make more money than I do, heh heh. I don't think anyone has a problem with AI finding errors. Essentially, it's been doing that for decades and getting better; it just wasn't marketed as AI. In the same sense, Photoshop has been doing "AI" work for many years, it just wasn't called the buzzterm "AI". At this point, with stock websites and Photoshop incorporating AI, graphic design is infused with AI already. If you are doing graphic design and not utilizing AI as a tool, from what I've seen, you're behind the curve. I was basically becoming an amateur graphic designer by default putting together ads and whatnot, and AI for stock visuals gives a nearly infinite supply of visual aids where I'm not using the same old crap from stock websites.

I'm in the middle of the road with AI in general, but in writing fiction (outside of research and corrections), it's lazy and creates junk. In world-building, I could see it being inspirational when stuck or when trying to work through some problem. If AI can help someone (say, a doctor) with poor English skills, write a useful pamphlet or book? Great. Whatever. It's where the fine line of art rests that is the biggest concern.

 

[Finchbearer]

Photoshop is not AI - it would be like going into an artists studio and saying that the paintbrushes, the turpentine and the paint are all akin to cheating. Psd allows the user to utilise different tools the same as any physical process does. Just because it’s a digital platform that doesn’t mean it anywhere comparable to AI. In essence AI is a bypassing of the need for any tools or creative input other than a text prompt that requires little energy or brain power to use, and while it has its place, as in people use it, it’s simply not the same as the designer physically using tools from a toolbar in Photoshop.

I only use Psd in a very limited way personally, it’s perfect for use with anything that is made up of pixels, like photographs, or for saving various file type or for resizing.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Photoshop uses AI. Sorry. It does. In the older versions, taking a photo and removing someone is a form of "AI". You can define that out if you like, but the new PS absolutely uses AI. Generative images are AI. Now, not all PS work is AI, but some of it is.

 

[Finchbearer]

If there is a specific AI function in newer versions then that specific feature is clearly artificial intelligence but psd is a toolbox - you can’t just input a prompt and it does the work for you, and I don’t think that’s ambiguous. I refuse to pay for the creative cloud so I’m running probably a vintage model, but it is my preference for how much I actually utilise it lol

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It's called Generative Images or some such thing and it is part of the Photoshop toolbox now, the point being that it will be used all over the place whether you do so or not. Hell, a person doesn't even have to type in anything. You can just make a box and tell it to Generate based on its surroundings, but you can also use text input in the attempt. You can also create a full image using the generative AI. If it's in Photoshop, and it's hitting the Stock Photo sites (see Shutterstock.com), then it will become widely accepted in the graphic design world and damned hard to avoid. It's happening now and is harder to stop than Frankenstein's Monster because it will keep better and better. A good graphic designer (and note, I'm not saying artist) who utilizes the AI tool will be able to produce covers and ad art that the old stock photo manipulation world wasn't capable of.

This doesn't replace true graphic art any more than graphic design did, but it's here.

 

[Mad Swede]

No, Photoshop does not use AI, not even in the version included in Creative Cloud (which I have at work). What it does have is several simple pattern recognition algorithms which help you edit photos. But you as the user do most of the work. Generating an image isn't a part of Photoshop, although you can use a pattern tool to fill in background. There is a generative image tool called Firefly included as part of Creative Cloud, but it isn't part of Photoshop.

As for saying that AI can generate expository text. Well, yes, but it won't be in your style so you'll need to do some editing. At which point you might just as well write the text yourself.

No, I would never use an AI tool. I'm an author, writing is my passion and my art. I write my books, despite my dyslexia, and the only thing I need help with is grammar and spelling correction. The rest comes from me.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Adobe calls it Generative AI, so I'll run with that.

And yep, I won't use AI for anything in writing, but I recognize that many will as they use Grammarly, and Grammarly is incorporating bits of AI for suggestions.

This was generated in PS on a blank 1x1 that I just plopped down with this prompt..."draw a tortoise on a beach":

 

[Finchbearer]

Yes looks like it’s called generative AI and is a type of add on product by the looks of it.

Adobe illustrator is far more my jam.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Generative AI comes with the PS/Adobe subscription, and I mostly do mapping and photos for the family with PS, so the AI is more of a toy. Actually, that's how I think of most AI right now. Toys. I also use several other parts of the Adobe family, InDesign mainly, but also Audition and a little bit of Premiere Pro. Illustrator I haven't gotten around to playing with much, but would like to for various mapping projects.

This is the sort of highly productive thing I tend to do with AI... Kermit as John McClane.

Yes looks like it’s called generative AI and is a type of add on product by the looks of it.

Adobe illustrator is far more my jam.

 

[Finchbearer]

Generative AI comes with the PS/Adobe subscription, and I mostly do mapping and photos for the family with PS, so the AI is more of a toy. Actually, that's how I think of most AI right now. Toys. I also use several other parts of the Adobe family, InDesign mainly, but also Audition and a little bit of Premiere Pro. Illustrator I haven't gotten around to playing with much, but would like to for various mapping projects.

This is the sort of highly productive thing I tend to do with AI... Kermit as John McClane.

It’s missing a word.

 

[Fyri]

Pretty sure AI is and has been everywhere for a while. Like, when Word or Google docs underlines something or capitalizes a letter, that's AI. I imagine many other art programs utilize similar stuff. Fixing red-eye in pictures would be one. There are many degrees of using technology as artifical intelligence. In the past, it was simply a passive suggestion or auto-fill/fix. Now it is simply becoming more than simple fixes or suggestions and rather like doing a majority of the work. Evolution that we create is evolution that we probably should regulate.

 

[Finchbearer]

Things like spellcheck aren’t technically AI. Those sorts of things might feel like AI, but they simply aren’t. Not all computer tech is AI in the way that you think it is.

 

[Fyri]

Things like spellcheck aren’t technically AI. Those sorts of things might feel like AI, but they simply aren’t. Not all computer tech is AI in the way that you think it is.

I'm not sure why you say this... I mean, it may not be generative AI, but as far as I understand it, it is still a form of AI.

 

[Finchbearer]

AI is different from normal computing

 

[Fyri]

AI is different from normal computing

A machine notices a jumble of letters and suggests a different way to organize them based on a list of words it's been given. Or perhaps more intensely, we should look at grammar suggestions. When the program suggests you change the grammar because you used passive voice or a sentence fragment. Suggests commas or the correct verb tense. Knows which there, their, there / then, than you should have used.

Perhaps there is a gray area between "normal computing" and "AI". Or perhaps I need you to elaborate more...