feat: move some articles back to blog

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 186 deletions

diff --git a/content/articles/generative-content.md b/content/articles/generative-content.md
deleted file mode 100644
index defbde5..0000000
--- a/content/articles/generative-content.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,186 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = "On generative content"
-author = ["Michał Sapka"]
-date = 2023-12-20T22:47:00+01:00
-lastmod = 2023-12-20T23:11:48+01:00
-categories = ["article", "update"]
-draft = false
-weight = 2003
-abstract = "I don't believe that AI will kill us, but I strongly believe it will lessen us. Here I try to describe that by looking at impact on art, culture, tech, and potential benefits."
-+++
-
-It seems that generative content from "modern" AI models has been with us forever.
-In reality this is still a new fad.
-The feeling is here because it seems that every few days we hear new product or controversy.
-
-However, I still remember that computers were to be unable to replace humans in _creative_ work.
-That the _human_ part is irreplaceable, and machines can only reproduce.
-I think it still the case.
-But, somehow, artists, techies, and all kinds of other folks all over the world are afraid of loosing their means of living.
-Rightfully so.
-But why?
-
-
-## 1. Mass-art market {#1-dot-mass-art-market}
-
-When I was younger, I was very into cinematography.
-We had so many directors with their voices - Jarmush, Lynch, Smith, Tarantino, Cronenberg, Carpenter, Boyle, Ritchie, Anderson, or Fincher.
-And that's just the USA!
-They had the voice - even when imitating, the movies were distinctly _theirs_.
-They got chances, so we all knew them.
-It is no longer the case.
-The mid-budget movie is almost non-existent, and that's where the creativity strived.
-The popular movies, the ones that make all the money, are indistinguishable copies of each other.
-What earns the money is the same, big budget CGI fest without any real meaning or personal touch.
-
-In photography the end product is so removed from the original, that often it is impossible to see similarities.
-Everything that is not perfect is corrected and removed.
-We don't see people from posters on the street because they don't exist in the same reality we do.
-This is what we call _content_, this shapeless blob filling platforms.
-
-The mass-market "art" (and I use the term here very loosely) was removed from the _human_ a long time ago.
-Why take chances, when we know what will work?
-And if you know what will work, why even bother with humans?
-An AI can create the script, and we can reuse that 3d model of Bogart - because why not?
-What we see and what we pay for is no longer _human_.
-It's more machine than that - endlessly modified to be as close the blob of mass appeal as possible.
-Indistinguishable from each other.
-
-And this is where generative algorithms strive.
-When we exactly know what we want to produce, where there is a mathematical equation of beauty, we're no longer in **human** creativity.
-
-Since the most popular _content_ is made from the same mold, LLM models can create it as well.
-In fact, it can create it better, as those _imperfections_ that a human might have missed, an AI can easily remove.
-
-All the Dall-E pictures are perfect. They are impossibly complex and complying to the popular norms.
-
-They are also boring.
-It's the imperfections that make _art_, well, _Art_.
-No human creation is perfect and this why computer generated _content_ can not be called art.
-It's too studied, too ideal, too perfect.
-
-But the mass market pulp is what allows _artists_ to live.
-This is where they make the money.
-This is what pays the bills, what puts the food on the table.
-Why pay 50EUR and wait 2 weeks for a Fiver order?
-You can get just as good result in 10 minute chat with a bot.
-
-LLMs have reversed humanity.
-I fear that we are getting back to the state where _art_ may come only from _suffering_;
-where artists live to create that one piece which may immortalize them, but this life is not what modern world promises.
-We are to no longer see _hungry_ people in developed countries.
-We are to no longer experience _pain_ in pursue of _happiness_.
-Why would anyone choose it?
-
-Therefore, I am afraid that this will decrease the number of people who choose creativity as their living hood.
-Without them, we will be destined to status-quo of mediocrity
-It will be perfect, but it will be soulless.
-
-Just as the mass market is now, just without anyone pushing it forward.
-And with us, running the hamster wheel of never ending _content_.
-
-
-## 2. Tech market {#2-dot-tech-market}
-
-The other, very popular, use case is code generation.
-
-GitHub Copilot can translate a short query into an evaluable code.
-It is sold as a mean to automate the _boring_ and _repetitive_ tasks - creating boilerplate, configurations, loops, or simple algorithms.
-But are those really lesser tasks than the big ones?
-
-I've been a professional Software Engineer for 10 years now.
-My journey has not been the typical, one where one finishes either IT college, or a boot camp.
-I'm self-thought, and I joined It Crowd from other occupation by sheer luck.
-The company needed _Ruby_ developer and boom - there I was.
-Not the perfect candidate, but I was capable, eager and hungry.
-
-I've made a lot of mistakes, I've wasted a lot of time, I've taken down the production on a few occasions.
-All of those could have been avoided if I used a code generation.
-
-But it's impossible of overstate how important those menial tasks were in making me into a real _Software Engineer_.
-
-With every mistake, I learned.
-With every issue, I became swifter to jump into action,
-With every boring, repetitive task[^ruby] I gained insights into how stuff works.
-[^ruby]: with _Ruby_ and _Ruby on Rails_ there aren't many of those but still, you do the same things from time to time.
-
-But the biggest growth came from the most hated task of all - writing tests.
-It is there where I learned how to write a usable contract; it is there where I learned the value of documentation-as-a-code[^cdac]
-Would I learn anything from "hey copilot, write tests for this class"?
-I doubt.
-[^cdac]: very often the best documentation of a contract is the test for it.
-
-This was what every intern/junior would do - the dirty work.
-With the dirty work comes the realization that the real world is not perfect, not every code is good and not every developer is good at being a developer.
-And with Copilot we are loosing it.
-
-We are losing it two ways: first, juniors will not learn; second junior will not be hired.
-We are already seeing that there are much fewer offers for sub-senior positions.
-Why would it be different?
-A senior aimed with code generation can do the work of many junior and one senior.
-It makes _perfect_ economic sense.
-
-But this is also the suicide of the industry.
-Without new blood, the tech crowd will shrink.
-Companies want infinite growth, and will not stop at anything to accomplish it.
-We've seen all the visa scandals, the inclusivity actions, the offshoring[^contr].,
-It's clear that all those had only one goal: to increase the pool of _cheaper_ candidates.
-The typical programmer is expensive; someone fighting to leave poverty is not.
-But now the competition is no longer _someone_ cheaper, but rather something that's never tired, and can create infinite number of creations, but is still _cheaper_ than a human can ever be.
-When was the last time you tried to outrun a train?
-When was the last time you tried to fight a machine to give your children a better start?
-[^contr]: this is not the place where I want to address those subjects, but their existence is important for this article.
-
-
-## 3. Maybe I am wrong {#3-dot-maybe-i-am-wrong}
-
-But what if I am wrong?
-We've seen similar things before.
-Ever since the beginning of industrial revolution, more and more industries were mechanized and automated.
-The machines needed someone to take care of them, to design them.
-And the rest of the populi moved to other areas.
-
-Will it be the same?
-Well, how much work does an _algorithm_ need to operate?
-We are still in development phase, so we see a lot of people working there.
-But when we will reach plateau?
-There will be a time when it will be good enough.
-A moment when companies will buy it and not expect it to be better.
-How many people will be needed then?
-What will be left to do?
-
-Will Universal Basic Income be enough?
-It assumes infinite growth, and this may be in the hands of very few, gigantic companies.
-We already see how big influence Altman and Open AI has.
-There will still be rich, the 1%, so money will still be an issue.
-Will we simply do yet another October Revolution?
-
-
-## 4. Utopia that is false {#4-dot-utopia-that-is-false}
-
-The best case scenario is that humanity, as a whole, will ascend.
-Free from the shackles of menial task, we will all be poets and explorers.
-
-This is what _Star Trek_[^old] is all about - a world where we no longer need to create and work to survive.
-In place of that, we are free to pursue adventure, knowledge.
-With nothing to gain, why one would need power?
-Money?
-We can focus on the humanity as one entity, to make it better.
-[^old]: old Trek, at last.
-
-In _Star Trek_ this was not created by removing jobs but by presence of _replicators_ - a device capable of creating virtually anything.
-No longer food is scarce, we can simply create it.
-
-Replicators are like LLM, but they create things of intrinsic value.
-This is what removed the shakles.
-And this is the biggest difference: LLM don't create anything that will actually free us.
-It will never make our lives better and freer.
-It will make it easier for _few_ on the cost of _many_.
-
-
-## 4. Summary {#4-dot-summary}
-
-I believe that LLMs will steal of us younger talent, who has yet to make a dent.
-They won't have the chance to learn and earn on the basic stuff, so they will not be in position to create the big thing.
-The cost of using LLMs is so low (and will only become cheaper), that there will be no place for them.
-And I am afraid that the post-LLM market can find worthy place for them.