Questionable content, possibly linked

Category: Other Page 57 of 182

Cool editorial cartoon

Enjoying this editorial cartoon & commentary by Phie Wei in the Scot Scoop regarding my AI lore books. Wei writes:

Author Tim Boucher claims to have written 97 books in nine months using ChatGPT. A sense of admiration exists for someone who has taken advantage of modern technology to create content at unimaginable speeds. However, seeing creativity being removed from the writing process is concerning. ChatGPT’s ability to use information derived from formerly published information online falls short because it can’t say or bring anything new to the world. Taking words from profound works of art without crediting the author and retooling them in a new context devalues authors’ dedication to their writing.

I wrote asking if they’d like to do an interview, but to give a brief reply here:

  • Creativity isn’t being removed from this process. The locus of activity of the artist is simply shifted & the writer becomes more like a creative director or a film director. In short, I’ve spent last 9-10 months using AI tools in a kind of feverish deeply creative and deeply intuitive “fugue state” that rivals or exceeds any other creative endeavor I’ve ever engaged in.
  • I don’t think LLMs or image diffusion models having been trained on other source works means that they can’t bring anything new into the world. First, because they are able to uncover connections that no humans have ever conceived of before, and to sift through those connections for the “best” ones (however we define that) in record speed. Simply look at how AI models are being used in pharmaceutical research for one example among many. All of that is new information being brought into the world. Second, its the job of the artist/writer as creative director to make certain any creative works produced DO bring something new into the world!
  • LLMs do not take words from other works, as I wrote about a bit here. To recap, AI models do not “sample” or take specific excerpts from other works, as in a collage. What they do is take measurements of dimensionality (e.g., they study and compare attributes) of a vast corpus of training material, and use that to uncover statistical semantic relationships – webs of meaning or common connections. Thus, there is really no single work which AI generated content is specifically referencing (unless you specify it – like by prompting, “A cat in the style of the Mona Lisa”).

There’s more to say of course, but that’s as good a foundation to go from as any.

Me today

In Publisher’s Weekly

I won’t pretend that the response has been overwhelmingly positive, but this Publisher’s Weekly tweet about my AI novels has sailed past 1.7M views, when usually their tweets are lucky to get 3-4K:

Obviously striking a nerve here with people!

Also, I’m up to 101 now, for the record. Try to keep up!

Towards a ‘Generativist’ Art movement

I’ve been trying for a while now to find a word that encapsulates what is happening now with arts, culture, music, entertainment, literature as a result of generative AI. And the word I have finally landed on is Generativist.

The word already has a sort of meaning by way of linguistics, in generative grammar, which is something I don’t admittedly know much more about than skimming a few web pages. GPT-4 provided me with this very compessed explanation:

Generative grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky, suggests that humans have an innate ability to understand and use language based on a “universal grammar” hard-wired into the brain. This theory posits that a finite set of grammatical rules can generate an infinite number of sentences. Essentially, it’s an explanation for how we rapidly learn and use complex language systems, and how we can understand and produce sentences we’ve never heard before.

So anyway, I tried taking some ideas I had been writing along the veins of what a “Generativist” art movement might look like, which embraces AI technologies as co-creative partners that can lift up the human creative spirit, and which ultimately also spring from it as a kind of fulfillment of one form of it. Here is a sort of sketch I wrote out on paper, which I then fed back into GPT-4:

Humans, as living things, are generative beings.

We make, because life makes.

We make art,

We make AI,

as an extension of life’s own making.

We make our imaginations

into solid places others can go,

into shared hallucinations

given tangible reality.

We no longer have to be alone in our dreams

unless we wish to be…

in order to seek the solace and refuge

of solitary silence

and the space to create anew

from the decaying forms of the old

And here is the draft text that I pulled out after several iterations with ChatGPT, suggesting what kinds of principles a Generativist Manifesto might contain, while preserving some of my poetic language above:

Innate Generativity: We, humans, as living things are generative beings. We make because life makes. We make art, we make AI, as an extension of life’s own making. This inherent capacity to create is universal and generative systems provide a means to explore and harness it.

Universal Structures: We assert the existence of universal structures and patterns underlying all forms of art, akin to the universal grammar of language. These structures are the framework of our making, the bones of our shared hallucinations given tangible reality.

Generative Systems as Tools: We regard generative systems as tools that can expand the creative capacities of the human mind, not as replacements for human creativity. They are the mechanisms through which we make our imaginations into solid places others can go.

Infinite Creativity from Finite Means: We believe in the potential of generating infinite artistic expressions from finite creative rules and structures. Like language that spins infinite sentences from finite grammatical rules, so do we spin infinite dreams from the loom of life.

Language and Art: We acknowledge the close relationship between language and art, between the word spoken and the image conjured. Through generative processes, we explore this relationship further, creating both linguistic and non-linguistic works.

The Space of Solitary Silence: We recognize the importance of solitude, the necessity of a space to create anew from the decaying forms of the old. In the quiet, we find the freedom to dream, and in our dreams, the seeds of new realities.

Critical Engagement with Technology: While we embrace the use of generative systems, we also critically engage with them. We reflect on the assumptions and biases that may be built into these systems and how they may impact the dreams we bring to life.

It’s a little wooden maybe in its language, but it touches on a lot of good core components that I wanted to preserve in a more raw form before trying to work on in more finished versions. I think it needs to work in still some of the conceptions around hyperreality & reality fluid, the uncanny valley, plus putting authorship & ownership into kind of a backseat role… Probably a few other odds & ends like that to incorporate here, but good enough base to share & move forward.

My books are actually *anti-AI*

One thing that I’ve noticed just about everyone who has taken a look at and dismissed my work out of turn has actually missed (because they didn’t actually read the books before deciding):

My AI Lore books do not glamorize AI; my books are anti-AI.

This might be hard to swallow for those who merely formed an impression by looking at the headline, or seeing someone else’s angry tweet chewing me out.

Yes, I use AI tools to help produce my storytelling. And people are upset about that because reasons. But it’s worth pointing out that the stories that I tell talk about human failure and the accumulation of mistakes, errors and unkindnesses (my working definition of dystopia). The failures which eventually lead us into the waiting arms of supposedly “intelligent” AI who basically never has our best interests at heart.

Because it has no heart. In my books, AIs don’t even believe humans are sentient. So looking out for our interests is little more than a passing curiosity.

I know it sounds like a contradiction to use AI to make stories telling us in its own voice, warning us about the dangers of the technology itself. But that is what makes my books “Art” (AIrt) and not just a curious commercial venture with so far small but steady returns.

Art doesn’t have to answer your questions. It doesn’t owe you that. Art makes you ask the questions though; art causes you to have the reactions, gives you the space and the ammunition to have them.

In some sense, what I did here was prompt the collective human AI (supported by the algorithms of socio-technical platforms and media distribution ecosystems), by giving it the text of my Newsweek article, and spit out the “top 1000 most likely human reactions.”

And everyone came along and crowd-sourced the hell of that.

Anyway, I forgot midway through where I was going with all of this. Maybe nowhere. Maybe I already got there. That’s blogging. /shrug


Here are some example AI Lore books that demonstrate a stronger anti-AI narrative (in case you don’t happen to believe this is central to my books):

No offense to authors but…

Authors in my experience make a sometimes terrible audience for writing. Why is that?

I guess it’s like if you give a concert and invite nothing but guitar players.

You end up with an audience full of people thinking, “I could do that.”

Or, “He messed up his fingering on that chord…”

Reply to Twitter

Twitter, I kept away from you for a long time. Swore I wouldn’t go back, til someone sent along a search results page I couldn’t look at without an account. Gone are the days when you could search or look at hashtags without being logged in.

So I logged in off a burner gmail, took a look around and went back and deactivated it again.

Up until recently, I felt like I couldn’t shake this constant feeling as a human that like… everything I do is wrong, and everything everyone else does is wrong. And that constantly thinking about it was driving me nuts, and there was no way out of it.

How does one confront one’s own anger, one’s own anxieties, one’s own depression – let alone have to deal with everyone else’s? The levers are not always so obvious or accessible when you’re in the depths of it all, as to how to change any of it. Often too, in a weird way, you can become addicted to the pattern, suffering over the constant punch it still can give you.

I’m not an expert in getting out of this by any means. Like you, I’m just another person on the internet. But my experience lately has been, and I don’t know if it’s just life stage or what, but I feel like meditation has been the only thing that’s given me a ladder out of the chaos and the pits people seem to be able to go into and send each other into in the special hells that are social media.

I know, it sounds stupid, trite, naive, simplistic, in short like bullshit. I’d always thought that too, I guess, and didn’t see how it could possibly be a means for me to better be able to manage my own life and whatever it is that I am as a being in this world.

But after re-watching all of the original Twin Peaks and the Return again, I started remembering how David Lynch is ultra into Transcendental Meditation (TM), and started listening to him talk about it, and its deep links to his own creative process. And what he was talking about in it, particularly about the artistic experience, it just resonated so much that I had to try it for myself. I wanted to be able to go back there again, to when I’d seen those heights in my own life, and been able to live there if only for a time…

TM for him seems to consist of twice daily 20 minute mantra meditations. I understand TM assigns something like special mantras based maybe on age and gender (?), that are supposed to be spiritually tuned to whatever. That’s fine & I’m sure there is great value in the social bonds paying to be part of TM affords you, but I’m not living in traditional Indian society, and don’t practice any of the rest of the things that go along with those traditions.

My more developed argument after listening to him speak on it, and my own experiences, is that the ground of being (represented in Quatrian lore as Acho), if the joyous experiences he describes so vividly in meditation really are the heritage of humanity, then it seems unlikely that a single school, in this case TM, has got the market cornered as to technique. It must be universal, and structural in the mind, matter, and being of people (and possibly all entities, if you take it to its logical conclusion — if only as a sci-fi concept.)

There’s an interesting section in this blog post linked here about exploring the Stoic tradition relative to meditation, and it talks about a researcher in the 1970s, comparing TM with other meditation and relaxation techniques:

Benson found that it made no real difference what phrase was repeated: you could pick more or less any word or short phrase and get the same result. So that removed any mystical or philosophical ingredients from the technique, at least in terms of its ability to evoke a beneficial physiological effect.

I would also possibly go so far as to argue that perhaps even your technique matters far less than merely your discipline and regularity of practice, and that simply sitting quietly twice a day for 20 minutes has a beneficial psychological re-balancing effect, no matter what you “do” internally during those 20 minutes.

But to me, since I started again, it doesn’t feel like “discipline” to spend this much time meditating regularly. It feels always like I want to go back there, again and again. It’s a refuge. It’s a place where I’m not connected to anything but the deepest thing. I’m not receiving notifications. I’m not being yelled at by strangers because they think I’m single-handedly destroying publishing by taking the obvious next step of integrating AI into story-telling.

It’s a place where I’m completely free to be just me, to listen. To listen to myself, to listen to the other voices that are crawling around in there rent free, and to let them have their say, to express themselves, and to listen without judgement, and then let it go when it’s time to let it go, Marie Kondo style.

In doing this, I’m able to hear myself again – free from the voices, and fears and hangups of others. I know with clarity and a feeling of cleanness, what is myself, and what is other, and can more clearly delineate the relative importance of it all.

What I see when I pop back on Twitter is everyone who is caught in some subvariant of the same underlying social media virus, that terrible twin feeling of “Everything I do is wrong, and everything everyone else does is wrong.”

But for me, that feeling has been receding progressively, and using now my telescope to look at the issue now, it all feels like its coming from another planet. Might be an interesting place to visit once in a while, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

I’m not here to preach an answer, or say do it my way. I just wanted at least to leave this as a record, a testament, of a prisoner who has managed to break free. Freedom from all of this might be fleeting, hard to catch and keep, but it is real, for however long we can have the courage to maintain it.

Exteriorizing Imagination

Stephan Ango coined the notion of the Idea Camera, where AI art generators would capture things that only existed on the substratum of our imagination(s), and give them a fixed and semi-tangible form.

This is still what amazes me about the experiences I’ve been having around coverage and reactions to my AI Lore books project. This is from El Tiempo:

The image preview they are using is from the recently released The Octave of Time, itself the sequel to The Lost Direction.

This is stuff I landed on courtesy of my imagination something ilke 3-4 years ago in some cases, largely due to my wanting to reclaim my own imagination as a “safe space” after working for years as a content moderator for a major web platform.

You could say Tob Gobble helped lead me out of the Hypogeum, and now here he is in one of his many curious forms (top right in the image grid) appearing in global news outlets, and Benda strumming the harp Eril given to him by the High Augur, which transforms into the Speaking Tree, Gennetatha.

I know that all sounds just like nonsense words to other people who are not initiated into the particular mysteries of Anthuor and Barbaro, and who don’t care to be.

But the point is, now they don’t have to be. We brought the dream to them. The lands I explored in my own imagination, and which Midjourney in this case helps to visualize now have a sort of existence all their own as they get replicated through information spaces across the web. As the story grows and evolves, and gets misinterpreted or intentionally distorted. These rooms in our imaginations we have opened up we can now share them, and walk around in them, talk about them together. Are they what we want them to be, what they could be? We can make them be.

Response to Mind Matters

One of the marks of an opinion which is not well-considered is that it merely parrots the opinion of someone else without seeking any new first-hand evidence themselves.

Such was my reaction to the article that appeared yesterday about my AI Lore books on a site called Mind Matters. After simply repeating what the author of the Futurism article wrote after reading one book which was a world-building “lore book” (not a novel), this author added:

Boucher’s online ratings are mediocre, and Adarlo notes that his most popular title was published in 2021, without the help of AI. Boucher also employs Midjourney to illustrate the novels. While clearly, it’s easier to use AI to generate text, the quality and storytelling are lacking.

I’ve seen enough responses to this coverage at this point to recognize when someone has formed an opinion without actually looking at, let alone reading any of the books.

I’m pretty clear-eyed and honest about what these books are; I can say with confidence that the quality and storytelling are not “lacking.” And the fact that 40% of all my sales come from repeat buyers proves this is not the case.

People seem quite confused about Gumroad’s rating system, which does not work like Amazon’s. You can not leave a review, you can only come back and leave 1-5 stars. Most of the books have no ratings. A few have one or two low-to-medium ratings. A few have higher ratings. And… that’s life?

Does it mean people hated the books? As a product manager, I don’t think that’s an assumption we can make without further proof. Instead, I think it probably means something more like: 1) people don’t know (or maybe care) that you can rate the books, and 2) once they’ve read the book, they don’t think to go back and put a rating.

Now, I don’t expect “normies” to understand the intricacies of user behaviors in product ecosystems like this and that’s fine. What it does tell me though, is displaying these ratings is giving off a false signal about book quality that doesn’t reflect actual buyer behavior toward them, which is heavily skewed towards repeat buying.

So, as a result of seeing people head down this blind alley of evaluation, I’m simply turning off ratings, so people don’t get caught up in it. It’s a stupid criticism: he didn’t get enough ratings (similar to: oh, well he didn’t make enough money). People have been brainwashed into thinking everything in life can be boiled down to “likes.”

I know this is a monumentally tall order, but if you’re curious about something: go check first-hand for yourself. Don’t rely on other people’s opinions to construct your own. That’s just lazy.

But then, maybe none of this is all that surprising when you consider the ultimate source of the site offering these views, one affiliated with Old Earth Creationism. They’ve obviously got it all figured out! (/s)

Notes on The Jellyfish War

The Jellyfish War is book #101 in the AI Lore books series. It was an accidental offshoot of another side project, which it is not yet time to reveal publicly.

Mainly, it was based on the discovery that pictures of jellyfish in NYC looked really frickin’ cool, and that I wanted to see more of them. It wasn’t long before a story concept unfolded, explaining the how and why that jellyfish had come to inhabit New York along with everyone else – namely that there was a massive invasion – and they won. And NYC was determined for whatever reason to be the place where the new human + jelly society would be pioneered.

Images are all Midjourney. Text started in an old tool I coded, running text-davinci-003 from OpenAI, which I eventually dumped into Claude to clean up and smooth out the tone, plus generate a few flash fiction pieces set in this world to round out all the world-building.

Here’s the art preview:

This book pairs especially well with Celestial Cephalopods, as they deal in a somewhat similar sort of parallel reality oceanic fantasy.

Page 57 of 182

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén