Models are increasingly showing their ability to extrapolate into the human unexplored (math proofs being the most apparent). What gives you confidence the absurdity of life is uniquely difficult for models to source?
Most good fiction authors are trying to communicate a story that’s forming in their minds. Even when they get stuck, they are usually not stuck because they just don’t know anyone to ask. It would’t be their voice anymore. Some do seek input and those might experiment with llms for ideas. Using llms for research, technical questions, grammar, synonym sentences, word selection, etc makes sense too.
I’d agree with OP for people generating full stories through llms. While I say that, I know a very young person who told a while back (like early ChatGPT 4 time) they use it to write fan fiction for books or characters they like.
Do I reflect on the objectively correct structure of the story? Do I "agree" with everything Dostoevsky is saying? Not really.
I don't know if this offends literature people or not. But this sure as hell is incompatible with the AI bro paradigm in which all thought can be objectively reduced to some shared standard to benchmark on.
My position will be read into as deep irrationality from many opposing positions, but it's fine.
Now, none of this doesn't "preclude* the ability for AI to have the same kinds of network effects. Of course it can - that's what I've been saying for the longest time. But don't confuse, becoming integrated with society, with this ideal of superhuman X.
Now of course, you could argue, "there is no such thing as anything else besides becoming integrated with society. There is no other standard that works." Very good! Darwinian-adjacnet positions are interesting. This is a position - but then don't claim it's equivalent, or god forbid, the exact same, as the "super AGI" ontology. These require fundamentally different assumptions about what justified what, and an attempt to try and pretend otherwise is sophistry.