Interesting answer. It's somewhat similar to storytelling (i.e. the 12 stages of the Heroes Journey). Everything that can be told has been told. It all comes down to how you tell it.
Thanks for adding to the conversation, @Kazanov.
- 3
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Interesting answer. It's somewhat similar to storytelling (i.e. the 12 stages of the Heroes Journey). Everything that can be told has been told. It all comes down to how you tell it.
Thanks for adding to the conversation, @Kazanov.
- 3
- 1
Ultimately, I think the best solution is thinking in terms of readiness for truly sophont AI. Current AI barely resembles the AI of sci-fi in terms of the actual processing going on, even if "AI" can fuction at a sufficient level to make someone unaware think they are just a bit odd.
But, sooner or later we will develop truly sophont AI, and that will create socio-economic issues that will be of a scale and nature comparable to the Atlantic slave trade.
In my view, it is obvious that today's "AI" is just a marketing-speak buzzword for clever algorithms that can broadly mimic intelligence. But, by creating a legal framework now where these AI products are considered entities in their own right independent of their creator organisations, we can shape a much more cooperative social relationship to true AI when it emerges.
As far as the usage of these tools goes?
Pragmatically, we would all like to have pretty pictures in our AARs, and I believe we can all at least have a vision of what we have in mind, even if we may not necessarily be able to put it on a page. In an ideal world those of us without sufficient artistic talent would pay artists with it, but paying artists is tricky, as any artist will tell you. For those of us on a budget of shoestrings, if the choice is between AI art, and no pictures...
I totally understand both sides.
In an ideal world, AI corporations would properly obtain consent for usage of content, and that they generally don't is what creates the primary ethical issue with using these tools; the process by which the AI develops it's pictures and the process by which we put together separate concepts into one concept are analogous in outcome even if the processes are dissimilar.
For me?
I could commission an artist to draw exactly what I have in mind if I describe it adequately at a substantial outlay per picture - the artist has every right to charge what they charge of course, no dispute there.
But if a single portrait is $45 say, that compares to almost 4 months of a subscription to Playground AI, which is the AI art generator I use, and pay for because I tested it out and concluded it was good enough for practical purposes (some prompts you'll get something usable every time you click generate, others... Well, it took literally hundreds of pictures to get acceptable images for Naomi and Buri for Life2.0, and the software is not capable of generating images of nuclear pulse propulsion utilising vessels) and as @Chac1 has pointed out, the delay you get as a free user is extremely limiting. (which I do understand; they have to prioritise paying users after all)
On balance though, a Playground subscription is far better value for money.
But, sooner or later we will develop truly sophont AI, and that will create socio-economic issues that will be of a scale and nature comparable to the Atlantic slave trade.
In my view, it is obvious that today's "AI" is just a marketing-speak buzzword for clever algorithms that can broadly mimic intelligence. But, by creating a legal framework now where these AI products are considered entities in their own right independent of their creator organisations, we can shape a much more cooperative social relationship to true AI when it emerges.
As far as the usage of these tools goes?
Pragmatically, we would all like to have pretty pictures in our AARs, and I believe we can all at least have a vision of what we have in mind, even if we may not necessarily be able to put it on a page. In an ideal world those of us without sufficient artistic talent would pay artists with it, but paying artists is tricky, as any artist will tell you. For those of us on a budget of shoestrings, if the choice is between AI art, and no pictures...
I totally understand both sides.
In an ideal world, AI corporations would properly obtain consent for usage of content, and that they generally don't is what creates the primary ethical issue with using these tools; the process by which the AI develops it's pictures and the process by which we put together separate concepts into one concept are analogous in outcome even if the processes are dissimilar.
For me?
I could commission an artist to draw exactly what I have in mind if I describe it adequately at a substantial outlay per picture - the artist has every right to charge what they charge of course, no dispute there.
But if a single portrait is $45 say, that compares to almost 4 months of a subscription to Playground AI, which is the AI art generator I use, and pay for because I tested it out and concluded it was good enough for practical purposes (some prompts you'll get something usable every time you click generate, others... Well, it took literally hundreds of pictures to get acceptable images for Naomi and Buri for Life2.0, and the software is not capable of generating images of nuclear pulse propulsion utilising vessels) and as @Chac1 has pointed out, the delay you get as a free user is extremely limiting. (which I do understand; they have to prioritise paying users after all)
On balance though, a Playground subscription is far better value for money.
- 3
Thank you for this deep and thoughtful response, @CBR JGWRR .
I will have to visit your AAR to see how you are deploying your Playground art. (I agree that those paying for subscriptions should get priority.)
I also agree with how you characterize the way AI currently works compared to what is possible in the future.
Feel free to comment in this post and share some of your process if you feel moved to do so. Thanks again for your deep thoughts on this topic.
I will have to visit your AAR to see how you are deploying your Playground art. (I agree that those paying for subscriptions should get priority.)
I also agree with how you characterize the way AI currently works compared to what is possible in the future.
Feel free to comment in this post and share some of your process if you feel moved to do so. Thanks again for your deep thoughts on this topic.
Last edited:
Life2.0 isn't actually using AI art much, although the relevant posts are starting from here. too many protagonist aliens that I can't get the software to come close to what I have in mind or those given by Stellaris itself, and the main propulsion type used by Life2.0 is too obscure for the AI to know what it means, which rather limits characters and images I can do with it that suit the setting.
- 1
@CBR JGWRR that's a fascinating long-view take on the AI artwork discussion. Thank you!
We could ask the ST:TNG computer (is that sophont, or maybe not even then?) how royalties work when we use Sherlock Holmes motifs in a holodeck in the 23rd century. I'm not mocking -- I'm thinking through this long term, and it's very interesting.
Does Data pay royalties? Or is it excepted because it's more than 70 years old and is in the public domain?
Obviously, it's a fictional universe, but ideally how would it work? Especially since they claim they don't use money. Would any artist have a trademark or any royalties in a society without money? Even would artwork be less common because there's no financial incentive? Would it be freer because it's pure imagination without thought to financial gain (would Taylor Swift even like the 23rd Century?).
Assuming our future world DOES use money, is there a better way to promote creativity but still compensate the original artists for ideas used by sophont AI?
Or does the sophont AI run us like a slavedriver and make us think and act creatively (or else!) in order to provide content for the folks rich enough to pay 500 quatloos a month for the AI service?
Rensslaer
We could ask the ST:TNG computer (is that sophont, or maybe not even then?) how royalties work when we use Sherlock Holmes motifs in a holodeck in the 23rd century.
I'm not mocking -- I'm thinking through this long term, and it's very interesting. Does Data pay royalties? Or is it excepted because it's more than 70 years old and is in the public domain?
Obviously, it's a fictional universe, but ideally how would it work? Especially since they claim they don't use money. Would any artist have a trademark or any royalties in a society without money? Even would artwork be less common because there's no financial incentive? Would it be freer because it's pure imagination without thought to financial gain (would Taylor Swift even like the 23rd Century?).
Assuming our future world DOES use money, is there a better way to promote creativity but still compensate the original artists for ideas used by sophont AI?
Or does the sophont AI run us like a slavedriver and make us think and act creatively (or else!) in order to provide content for the folks rich enough to pay 500 quatloos a month for the AI service?
Rensslaer
- 1
As far as Star Trek goes, it has the simplifying factor that World War Three meant the nations as we know them today essentially are long gone by the time even Enterprise takes place; Sherlock Holmes is almost certainly public domain, and presumably everything from our time period is for that matter.
Whether there's money is in a weird place; we know they have a form of exchange based on replicator allowances, which is reasonable as energy would be the dominant restriction to a civilisation of the scale of the Federation, and the exchange of replicator allowances effectively becomes a currency even if it isn't money as we call our coins and notes and cards. And of course, Gold-Pressed Latium.
The actual status of copyright in setting is interesting and varies, and develops over time, eventually allowing a Hologram who writes his own story to own copyright on said story after it is published without his consent.
As far as extrapolating the future goes, I believe we need to create an environment where Humanity is ready to be a parent to AI and the provolve and neogen life we will create and uplift in the coming decades and centuries; I would hope that the AI in your example employs the artists gainfully, instead of just imposing slave labour on Humans. Presumably, we will see sub-sophont, but extremely sophisticated programs develop that are good enough without actually needing to be enslaved as such, otherwise things will get complicated...
I'd also contend we will have money in the future as a means of easily exchanging items that are non-fungible and/or have value that isn't intrinsic to the item's raw value. Real Estate for example, is not fungible even when we are dealing with the advanced future of easily constructed space habitats where you deploy your Neumanns to some asteroid and leave them alone for a while until they make a habitat. In this future, the value would be in the authenticity; anyone could have a copy, but an original would have it's own value. Even for items that are essentially mass produced, there are cases where values can differ; there are people in the world who would pay extra for a vehicle that has been driven by someone famous. Extrapolating from here, I'm therefore inclined to think that trademarks and royalties would increase in significance over the present day for that same authenticity.
Whether there's money is in a weird place; we know they have a form of exchange based on replicator allowances, which is reasonable as energy would be the dominant restriction to a civilisation of the scale of the Federation, and the exchange of replicator allowances effectively becomes a currency even if it isn't money as we call our coins and notes and cards. And of course, Gold-Pressed Latium.
The actual status of copyright in setting is interesting and varies, and develops over time, eventually allowing a Hologram who writes his own story to own copyright on said story after it is published without his consent.
As far as extrapolating the future goes, I believe we need to create an environment where Humanity is ready to be a parent to AI and the provolve and neogen life we will create and uplift in the coming decades and centuries; I would hope that the AI in your example employs the artists gainfully, instead of just imposing slave labour on Humans. Presumably, we will see sub-sophont, but extremely sophisticated programs develop that are good enough without actually needing to be enslaved as such, otherwise things will get complicated...
I'd also contend we will have money in the future as a means of easily exchanging items that are non-fungible and/or have value that isn't intrinsic to the item's raw value. Real Estate for example, is not fungible even when we are dealing with the advanced future of easily constructed space habitats where you deploy your Neumanns to some asteroid and leave them alone for a while until they make a habitat. In this future, the value would be in the authenticity; anyone could have a copy, but an original would have it's own value. Even for items that are essentially mass produced, there are cases where values can differ; there are people in the world who would pay extra for a vehicle that has been driven by someone famous. Extrapolating from here, I'm therefore inclined to think that trademarks and royalties would increase in significance over the present day for that same authenticity.
- 2
- 1
Robert Silverberg used to maintain that there was in fact only one story - the Hero's Journey, as you say. In some uses different parts may be left out or subverted, but the essential elements and plot points remain. I am not entirely persuaded to say that he is right, but I also find myself unable to say that he is wrong. As I remember it was in one of his Asimov's editorials and I cannot find it now.
I once emulated Hitchcock's killing of the supposed protagonist of Psycho in the first third of the movie by killing off my protagonist in the first chapter. Anyone have any thoughts on how you have deliberately used the hero's Journey formula, or subverted it?
- 3
Great theme @Director. Joseph Campbell created a template laying out the typical stages of a Hero's Journey. It comprised 17 stages in 3 acts. The other template, by Christopher Vogler, was created as a guide for Hollywood screenwriters. For reference, here is a chart courtesy of Wikipedia detailing the Acts and Stages. For further detail on the stages, try here: Hero's Journey. Of course, it's just a template. A short story, and possibly a novella, would not necessarily include all these steps.
| Act | Campbell (1949) | Christopher Vogler (2007) |
|---|---|---|
| I. Departure |
|
|
| II. Initiation |
|
|
| III. Return |
|
|
- 2
- 1
@Lord Durham - Thanks! Those will be helpful.
At first glance it seems that a lot of myth and legend fits that formula. One somehow never hears 'And the Hero stayed at home instead of wandering off, and was obedient to his Mom and Dad and tithed to the church and married that nice plain girl from next-tribe-over and never, ever tried to disrupt the Way We Do Things.'
At first glance it seems that a lot of myth and legend fits that formula. One somehow never hears 'And the Hero stayed at home instead of wandering off, and was obedient to his Mom and Dad and tithed to the church and married that nice plain girl from next-tribe-over and never, ever tried to disrupt the Way We Do Things.'
- 2
What a great writing exercise that would be. In as few words as possible write a story about a hero tasked with a quest who doesn't want it.
"Comax! The evil High Knoblord is threatening the world. We need you!"
"Nah."
Stage 1 and stage 2. The End.
- 2
- 1
The best and most heartbreaking story ever written was six words:
"For Sale: Baby shoes, never used."
- 2
- 1
Indeed. Actually I think the reason it's so poignant is because it's so short. It requires - demands! - that the reader fill in the blanks by imagining the story. And I suppose that's the power of short stories.
The story of Jonah is one of the most interesting stories @Lord Durham of a hero given a quest who didn't want it. Might be worth a re-read. The Veggie Tales version is pretty funny but not as serious as the tale deserves. Basically Jonah said, "God, so you want me to travel north to Ninevah and tell those horrible people to repent? Actually I think I'm going to hop a ship to Spain. See 'ya!". And in the end Jonah isn't really the hero. The heroes are the Ninevites who did what was asked of them. Meanwhile Jonah was sulky and rebellious the whole time and never did seem to grasp the significance of what had just happened.
It's also funny that most of the way through God is gently teasing Jonah about his attitude. Except for the beginning when he just dunked him in stormy water to get his attention.
Rensslaer
- 1
The Hero's Journey works for a lot of plots, but I don't think it's universal. Also, it's more common in Fantasy and Sci-fi than other genres.
The issue is that most of the story comes from the adventure, so the options for refusal of the call are "You don't actually have a choice", "Look at all this fun you refused", and regret. You can write a story from the latter two, but the first one is easier.
We actually had a GtA prompt about curiosity (and, by extent, adventure) denied. That was fun to write for (here's the link).
The issue is that most of the story comes from the adventure, so the options for refusal of the call are "You don't actually have a choice", "Look at all this fun you refused", and regret. You can write a story from the latter two, but the first one is easier.
Last edited:
- 1
Not universal, but the Hero's Journey is a good guideline. There are other interpretations out there, like the 3 Act, 4 Act and even 5 Act Structure, each with its own stages. However, the basics apply to all of them: Setup, Confrontation and Resolution.
Thanks for the link. I'll have to read that.
- 1
- 1
I don't recall who wrote it, but the shortest science fiction story goes:
"The last man on earth sat alone in a locked room. There came a knock at the door."
A parody version goes:
"The last cat on earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door.
'Did you bring a can-opener?' said the cat."
Short fiction doesn't always fit the Heroes Journey simply because there isn't enough room to get all the points in (as @Lord Durham pointed out). But I would posit that any story must have a hero, a quest (or problem or goal), an antagonist and a puzzle or puzzles to be solved. Lacking that you have an account, but not a Tale.
Speaking of reluctant... one of my favorite ideas for a scene was to have the conquering hero come home from the wars covered in glory, only to be met by his furiously-angry, evil-minded brother. Said brother remarks bitterly that while the other has been having wine, women, battle and song, the brother has had to sit at home, attend to the minutae of administration and be good.
"The last man on earth sat alone in a locked room. There came a knock at the door."
A parody version goes:
"The last cat on earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door.
'Did you bring a can-opener?' said the cat."
Short fiction doesn't always fit the Heroes Journey simply because there isn't enough room to get all the points in (as @Lord Durham pointed out). But I would posit that any story must have a hero, a quest (or problem or goal), an antagonist and a puzzle or puzzles to be solved. Lacking that you have an account, but not a Tale.
Speaking of reluctant... one of my favorite ideas for a scene was to have the conquering hero come home from the wars covered in glory, only to be met by his furiously-angry, evil-minded brother. Said brother remarks bitterly that while the other has been having wine, women, battle and song, the brother has had to sit at home, attend to the minutae of administration and be good.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Not a perfect fit, but it strikes me that there’s something of The Prodigal Son in this set-up.
- 2
- 1
Indeed a tragic tale of naivety, corruption, greed and falling from grace. A young expectant couple buy a pair of baby shoes, only to find out that babies don't need or wear shoes. They realise they have been scammed into buying a useless item and are understandably upset. Sadly, rather than report the vendor to the authorities or chalking it up as a learning experience, they spiral downwards and end up putting the shoes up for sale themselves, in the hope of finding some other poor soul to con into buying them. They have therefore become as bad as the people who scammed them, ensuring the whole sad tale will just repeat itself.
It is this sort of analysis that means I'm not welcome in literary circles.
- 2
- 1
You do yourself a disservice, Pip. When this nugget came up during the creative writing module I did on my MA, it was only so our lecturer could pierce the bubble of illusion and instill us with the valuable knowledge that Hemingway never even wrote the thing.
There followed a brief discussion about style, parody and literary legend.
- 1
- 1
I don't know if you've ever seen the movie The Warlord, but it basically follows those themes. Chuck Heston is a battle hardened Norman Knight favoured by the Duke (it's never revealed if it's William or not), given a Keep and tasked with keeping the nasty Frisian raiders away while maintaining some kind of peaceful relationship with the local Saxon populace. His 'evil' brother (Guy Stockwell) resents all the favours and glory his brother has amassed while he wallows in the background. Needless to say, shit happens. It's an excellent film directed by Franklin Shaffner (Planet of the Apes and Patton) with a killer music score.
- 2