kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 27, 2024 19:47:53 GMT -8
I believe that purpose could already be achieved by replacing "stars" with news readers, which is what they actually should be. I would gladly get up and read the news for $1 million a year. Put me in George Stephanopoulis' place and ABC would save $15 million or more, I would estimate. You could take the place of someone at CNN and they could probably make a similar saving. Both ABC and CNN would still get AI, "Ancient Intelligence."
I wonder if some copy boy might be able to fill in some key information and context and just let the AI run with it?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 27, 2024 20:40:09 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 27, 2024 20:40:09 GMT -8
Yes, why not. Given that a large percentage of the "news" is not news but political propaganda, it seems to me that AI could do as good of a job for a lot less than paying Rachel Maddow all that money.
Yes, personalities are what viewers respond to. But she's as artificial as Bill Maher. So why not just go 100% artificial and pay less?
It will probably shock most traditional sensibilities to suggest that an AI-generated personality could replace the "real" ones. (Max Headroom was definitely not ahead of his time, but it shows you the concept of injecting personalities into artificial entities.) But I think they could and will. I mean, you and I know that basically these "journalists" haven't had an original thought in 30 years and are just regurgitating Leftist memes. They don't need to pay anyone millions of dollars to do that.
Right now AI is probably not safe enough to use to replace Dan Rather or his ilk. AI still hallucinates and says strange things. (How is this different from Rachel Maddow, you ask? Good point.)
But soon AI will be more dependable for such things as reading the news. And we are fast approaching a world when most will not know how to tell the difference between real and fake, or that such a distinction exists at all. We see that in our world right now where most things in the media (news, advertising, etc.) are all basically fake, false, or phony. We can see where this is all headed because we can see where we are now.
The interesting question asked in that article is whether Big Tech will absorb the MSM even as the MSM attempts to play footsie with AI companies and receive hush money to avoid lawsuits. The good news is that I think AI will likely kill the MSM. But we don't really know what will replace it. All I can assume is that it can't be much worse than what we have now.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 28, 2024 7:37:23 GMT -8
I don't know. One of Kung's aphorisms is:
Don't worry, no matter how bad things are, they can always get a damn sight worse.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 28, 2024 8:10:20 GMT -8
I saw an article the other day. It was either at The Blaze or The American Spectator. It was behind a pay wall. But the headline was something like, "Given the creeps who are proponents of AI, no wonder that many people are worried." We see glimpses of these atheist, materialist, Marxist-infused (or Libertarian-infused...same thing) creeps in the excesses of business everywhere, where a normal human conscience does not prosper or survive. That, as much as female hysteria, fueled the KFF panic. There is a fixation on profit...or ego...or status with these new robotic yutes. But the human equation of just plain decency doesn't enter into it. Our capitalist society always had an edge to it. But even the Titans of the industry eventually became great philanthropists – at least in the past. No more. We are seeing truly sociopathic men being driven by dreams of an electronic or computer Utopia. And it's not that artificial reality and AI don't have their uses, if only for gaming and recreation. But I think mixed in with this stuff is a new religious-like fundamentalism of transhumanism. That, I'm pretty sure, is why the moniker of "creep" was in the headline of that article. Even Elon Musk is of this type. One headline at The Blaze is " Elon Musk suggests AI could make all human jobs obsolete, ushering in 'universal high income'". That is right out of Star Trek, the original series. There's little doubt that technology has allowed humans to let machines do the back-breaking work, allowing us to focus on more than just sheer survival. They give us a surplus of goods and creative pursuits in terms of what we do with our labor, as well as much more leisure time. But anyone with half a mind understands that idle hands do the devil's work. Imagine the "utopia" where everyone received a "universal high income." Do you think there would be peace? Hell no. It would be social anarchy. We see, for instance, the poisonous spoiled brats who usually come from rich families who wind up espousing the worst doctrines, such as Marxism. Work is necessary and good or else we become vegetables or moral monsters. The Star Trek ideal is that we'll all be recreating and creating things to our heart's content in our leisure time. But we've already run that experiment. Never before in the history of the world have people had their basic needs so easily met. And yet most people think the Western world is horrible. And noxious freeloaders abound, even where ample jobs are available. "The homeless" could be said to be living that social utopia where people need not work. No doubt AI will be yet another technology doing things that humans used to do. But if the end goal, or the result, is replacing humans then it's difficult to see anything but disaster coming from that. |
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 28, 2024 8:24:22 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 28, 2024 8:24:22 GMT -8
More like a bad version of The Time Machine.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 28, 2024 10:31:15 GMT -8
I've still got a thing for Weena. And wasn't Rod Taylor just ready-made for that role? If you ever get a chance to watch the 2002 version, it's not half bad.  I really should read the book. Perhaps I'll do that if the Inspector Lynley book goes bust, but so far so good. I tried more than once to get hooked on The Inspector Linley Mysteries series. But I just could never warm to it. And, yes, there are lots of conservative lessons to be found in that film. |
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 28, 2024 11:11:55 GMT -8
I recall discussing this sometime back. I read most of, perhaps all, the Lynley books up to This Body of Death. George's books had been getting progressively more leftist so I called it a day.
Surprisingly, George is an American. She creates believable settings, but did make some mistakes here and there. One of her early ones was saying that the British police cordoned off the crime scenes using yellow tape, when in fact they use blue and white tape.
Since I like long books, and George's are long, I enjoyed reading her work, but I know you are not a fan of such tomes, so I wonder if you will make it through to the end.
If you have watched the Lyndley TV series, you will note many differences between the books and the series. I much preferred the books.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 29, 2024 7:04:19 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 29, 2024 7:04:19 GMT -8
The issue for me isn't so much length as it is keeping the story moving forward. Lord knows I don't mind a little introspection. But many stories completely fall apart by simply circling, circling, circling, through plodding reflections on this, that, or the other. I made it through the unabridged Les Miserables just fine. And I made it through the highly introspective Oh Human Bondage just fine, although Maugham's work was extremely repetitive and somewhat unbelievable. But try as I might with that recent book I mentioned, The Secret Passage, I couldn't make it even a third of the way through. My god. It just started sifting, sifting, sifting through the parts of the plot that had elapsed, adding nothing new. How can anyone find this interesting? But at least so far in this Lynley book, we have moved here and there. But mainly it's been about meeting Lynley's bitchy new partner. She may be the reason I can't stay with it. I don't mind battling partners. But I can see this getting very old quickly. We'll see. But I certainly do expect that the books are better than the TV series. They would have to be.
And I was thinking that Agatha Christie can make this work because of the interest of her idiosyncratic detectives. A murder is committed. The rest of the story is pretty much about sifting through the evidence and examining the possibilities. Even so (at least regarding the TV series...I've not read one of her books), her plots often become convoluted and unbelievable and the stories a bit repetitive. But I think I understand a bit better after reading so much other garbage why she put in the red herrings, additional murders, etc. You simply have to keep moving things along.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 29, 2024 11:29:18 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 29, 2024 11:29:18 GMT -8
I believe there are basically two types of fiction. The first is a story which is impelled by action. It does not make much pretense at reflection. It's goal it to tell a story in straightforward terms. It is entertainment pure and simple. At it's best, it is held together with well thought out plots and does not rely on unbelievable twists and such. No deus ex machina. It has few, if any, higher goals. It's main goal is to attract as many eyes as possible.
The second is a "message" story. It tries to delve into the minds and motivations of human beings. Why they do what they do and what the possible results of their actions are. The goal is to cause the reader to think, particularly about the reader's own thoughts and actions. To goad the reader into considering what he might do in similar situations. It also tries to open the reader to ideas and possibilities which might otherwise never have crossed the reader's mind. While this story hopes to attract eyes, its primary goal is pedagogical.
One could claim there is a third type, which is the combination of the two mentioned above. This type is very uncommon and often belongs to what we might call the great literature of the world. Les Miserables would probably fit this description.
All three types have their place.
I read Of Human Bondage when I was twenty, while studying in Vienna. It is the story of a very insecure self-absorbed young man who allows himself to be buffeted about by emotions and hormones. It spoke to me at twenty. I am not so sure it would do so still. I believe I still have the paperback copy I read in Vienna.
I read Les Miserables sometime after I read Of Human Bondage. I was still in my twenties, but more mature. I think it probably holds up better than Of Human Bondage. I also have my copy of the, I believe, Penguin Paperback which I bought overseas somewhere.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 29, 2024 12:23:28 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 29, 2024 12:23:28 GMT -8
I am sure I have mentioned this before, but in Christie's case, the films are better than the books. Specifically, the David Suchet Poirot films are better. The Peter Ustinov films were not.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 29, 2024 13:51:56 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 29, 2024 13:51:56 GMT -8
If you mean "pussy-whipped" then just say "pussy-whipped". Clearly to me the weak part of this book is the main plot. Philip Carey is a human punching bag. Knock him down and he'll just say, "Thank you sir, may I have another"?
I wrote extensively at another site years ago as I was reading through it. Pages and pages of comments. The book was full of quite amazing stylistic insights. And I was overall quite impressed by Maugham's literary style and imagination. But as I complained often to my buddy at the time (who cajoled me into reading this...he wanted to see my reaction) that the plot was repetitive. This is not a book I would read again, nor would I recommend it.
As for writing styles, I can see some merit in your categorizations. I suppose I would put it at:
1) Books I like
2) Books I don't like
3) Books I want to like but can't quite make it over the hump and finish them.
H. Rider Haggard's books weren't necessarily Shakespeare. And he seemed to keep going back to the same overall plot. But they moved along. Things happened. And he made some really interesting and deep observations along the way.
I like that mix. Few writers these days can accomplish it. I thought the Charles Finch books (for a modern series) did a reasonable job of it. The plot moved along, You got at least some insights here and there, although character development and endings were clearly his weak spots.
It may be tossed aside as a children's book today, but Kipling's Jungle Book flows nicely and is a page-turner. As was the first couple of pulp-fiction John Carter books. Jack London could also tell a good story. I've read probably most of his seafaring books and short stories.
And whether insightful and introspective or not, a good story is what it's all about, whether talking fiction or non-fiction. Many a non-fiction book I've read that was a page-turner. Lots and lots of them.
But I confess that I still can't get into Dickens. I have his writing style ponderous. The same with Jane Austin. And many of the classics I think are classics only because the bore all the right people. But I've read Tolkien and loved it. The first Dracula book is a page-turner. Will I ever read Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath? Almost certainly not, because these kinds of books just bore me.
I guess I like a little more adventure. Conan Doyle? Brilliant. The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison? If ever there was a boring book this is one of them. Or maybe it's just boring to me. But, good god, that book is a one-trick pony that goes nowhere and yet it is a classic.
Moby-Dick? Okay, yes, I get it. Long – too long – but a true classic and I'm glad I read it. But I would never re-read it. I've tried Hemingway. He obviously can write. But I just wasn't interested in his plots.
To Kill a Mockingbird? Yes, another classic that reads well and deserves its station. Brave New World is the kind of classic every conservative should read at least once. It was mostly good, but I wouldn't ever re-read it. James Joyce. I admit, of all the authors, he's one that I clearly don't get.
C.S. Lewis wrote wonderful page-turners in his Narnia series. I tried that one space trilogy and didn't get far. I tried That Hideous Strength and just couldn't stick it out. Boring. But his Narnia stuff is some of the best adventures stories to be read.
Mark Twain is a great book, although I hound The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to be a shadow of the other book. Treasure Island. Great. A classic that doesn't have to blush at that designation. I suppose I realize that as I've gotten older, I've read quite a few books and perhaps there's just not all that much left.
So it is harder to find good books. And almost nothing written today is any good because of wokeness and/or the general denuding of the classic imagination.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 29, 2024 14:47:32 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 29, 2024 14:47:32 GMT -8
I will admit that I never thought much of "Animal House." Even stranger to me was the popularity of John Belushi. The Blues Brothers was a self-indulgent piece of crap and "1941" was one of only two movies that I have ever walked out on.
I was too. It is funny what stays in one's mind from stories. I still recall the Philip Carey character describing how he was orphaned and had to live with his aunt and vicar uncle. At breakfast, his uncle would use a knife to crack off the top part of his soft-boiled egg. He would give Philip that little bit of boiled egg-white and eat the rest of the egg himself. The uncle seemed to think he was being very magnanimous.
After "Of Human Bondage" I read "The Moon and a Sixpence", "Cakes and Ale" and "The Razor's Edge." I liked all three, but the first and third are more clear in my mind after all these years. I also read some of his short stories, of which "The Book Bag" stayed with me.
Those are useful categories, but only after the fact. One can't determine what books belong where, until one has read a particular book. My categories have the advantage of helping make one decide what books one wishes to read. If I am looking for entertainment, I will certainly not run to anything written by Dostoevsky. If I am looking for the meaning of life, I won't start with Agatha Christie.
Of course, why one reads books is another question. Maugham addressed this, to some degree in his "The Book Bag" short story. He literally carried a bag of books with him wherever he went. He could find interest even in a Sears catalogue or something like it.
I found him to be one of the best writers in English. His main plot was Africa and that gives one a lot of room for developing stories. But I recall different passages which he wrote that topped just about anything else I have ever read as regards to touching the human heart. Quartermain's mourning the death of his son is probably the most evocative piece of writing I have ever come across.
His evil wizard Zikali is a unique character in literature, at least in my vast experience of reading.
I love just about everything I have read by Kipling and I have read about every novel and short story he wrote. I read Stoker's Dracula in one sitting of about 8 hours. I have read it at least twice since.
I can understand that Dickens needs editing, but have never heard anyone describe Austin's writing as ponderous. I had to read Moby Dick for an eighth-grade book report and put off reading it till the end of the semester. Not something I would recommend. But I still have my paperback copy from that time.
I have read "The Lord of the Rings" five times, including the appendices. I also read "The Hobbit" and "The Silmarillion."
In fact, the only author in your list which I haven't read is Ralph Ellison.
To a large degree this is the case. I also prefer a "good story" to a boring story. But, in non-fiction, I prefer facts even more than a good story. Too often one comes across a "good story" which stretches or ignores the facts. We have seen this with a couple of posts here lately.
It is wonderful when a contributor to the Cambridge Modern History can write like a novelist, but I do not skip a good piece of history because the writer is not Shakespeare. Veracity, information and knowledge trump everything else.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 11:22:02 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 30, 2024 11:22:02 GMT -8
There is certainly the idea of reading in order to gain knowledge to augment a certain skill or task. But most reading I do, fiction or non-fiction, is about entertainment. I want a sense of story. For non-fiction, I want some skill involved in presenting the information in a relevant way. When I read a biography, for instance, don't bore me to death with too much detail (as many do). Give me a sense of place, of this person, and how he fits into and perhaps changes his age.
Sprinkle in the facts. I love facts as well. But don't do the equivalent of what many do in their horrible fiction when they spend one large paragraph describing what someone is wearing. Space this stuff out a bit or it just gets too dense.
I'll stand by Jane Austin as ponderous. But I will try to give it another go, although I'm much more likely to try my hand again at Dickens.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 13:05:52 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 30, 2024 13:05:52 GMT -8
Since I was 14 or 15, I have read virtually every night before going to sleep. Of course, I read other times during the day, but I find it hard to sleep without reading beforehand.
Even back some 55 years ago, I read as much, in fact more, for knowledge as I did for entertainment. Yes, it is good to read things for specific knowledge, but I find reading for knowledge of all kinds, augments life. There is a grand scheme of things, and while we cannot hope to comprehend it all, we can try by reading various and apparently disparate materials in the search for knowledge. These apparently disparate materials sometimes intersect in ways which we might not have imagined. This can give us insights which we might never have come close to otherwise.
Luckily, history, culture, civilization and related subjects have always been entertaining to me. But my main object in studying these and many other subjects has been learning. As a child, I was known to constantly ask "why?" At my core, little has changed.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 13:12:18 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 30, 2024 13:12:18 GMT -8
That is very likely because you have no interest in her subject matter. I can understand that. But as regards her skill with the English language there can be no serious doubt.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 18:12:06 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 30, 2024 18:12:06 GMT -8
I try to do at least 30 minutes of reading at the very end of the day. It certainly does put me into the mood for sleep.
I have a natural curiosity as well. Perhaps that is the prerequisite for seeing through baloney. You have to be curious about motivations, facts, history, etc.
Regarding plain facts, my take on that is that facts are interesting to the extent that they communicate or facilitate meaning. I love books, fiction or non-fiction, that have something to say in this regard. That is, they contain themes. It's reminiscent of that quote attributed to Samuel Goldwyn: If you want to send a message, use Western Union.
Yes, please do send a message. And I think that quote is baloney on the face of it. Most great movies (Casablanca) are full of messages. Of course, it depends upon the message and how overt it is.
I think I get turned off from a lot of books because they have nothing to say. They have no message. And if they do, it's almost never a noble one. So all they can do is basically mentally masturbate by saying the same bland things over and over.
However, there is a genre of straight adventure books (Tarzan, John Carter, Jungle Book) that are just plain fun because they can take you where you could never go yourself.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 18:28:35 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 30, 2024 18:28:35 GMT -8
I tried reading Northanger Abbey. And I couldn't stay with it. It wasn't going anywhere. I guess you have to be interested in the non-stop chatter between women about what they are wearing and where they are going. I just found that so dull.
On the other hand, I'm a yuge fan of period pieces, especially in movies. I like a little old-style British intrigue. The King's Speech. Downton Abbey. Gosford Park. The Queen. Howards End. The Remains of the Day. (But not A Passage to India. Boring!). Upstairs, Downstairs. Edward & Mrs. Simpson. Call the Midwife. (I'm not against chick-flicks if they are well done.) The Crown (season one only). (Not sure if I've tried The Forsyte Saga yet). And certainly there are a few good Dickens adaptations, including Alec Guiness in Oliver Twist.
There's a 2007 adaptation of Northanger Abbey. Maybe that's a way to try some Austen.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 19:15:59 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 30, 2024 19:15:59 GMT -8
I think "Pride and Prejudice", "Sense and Sensibility" and "Mansfield Park" are a better books. Perhaps one has to have an interest in the lives of the landed gentry in late 18th, early 19th century England to find them interesting. While there may be a number of books written during this period which are written from a feminine point of view, Austen's are the only such books that I have come across, other than the Bronte sisters. And they were born around the time Austen died. Different times.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 19:23:00 GMT -8
Post by Brad Nelson on May 30, 2024 19:23:00 GMT -8
Right now I’m watching the 1986 version of Northanger Abbey on the Roku Channel . It has Robert Hardy in it. Even though these older productions tend to be lower budget, they are usually better acted.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
A.I.
May 30, 2024 19:26:46 GMT -8
Post by kungfuzu on May 30, 2024 19:26:46 GMT -8
While there are numerous good period pieces, I like many you mentioned, I generally prefer the book to the movie. A very good example of why this is so would be The Lord of the Rings. While the movies were excellent, they left out much which was in the book. Given the difference in the size of movie audiences and avid readers, this is understandable. Nonetheless, some of the series do give the time and money necessary to do justice to the novels on which they are based.
Perhaps my favorite such series is this one. |
|
