Every once in a while, the YouTube algorithm throws up a bit of flotsam from the shipwreck of content that I very much like---and that I would never have otherwise heard of. In this case, it's a short video (4:43) of Stephen Fry reading a letter written by Nick Cave on the subject of LLMs and creativity. <media href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGJcF4bLKd4" src="https://www.youtube.com/v/iGJcF4bLKd4" source="YouTube" width="560px" author="Letters Live" caption="Stephen Fry reads Nick Cave's stirring letter about ChatGPT and human creativity"> I've citing at length below from the original blog post <a href="https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chatgpt-making-things-faster-and-easier/" author="Nick Cave" source="The Red Hand Files">Iss #248</a>, which answered the question, <iq>[...] what’s wrong with making things faster and easier?</iq> <bq><b>ChatGPT rejects any notions of creative struggle</b>, that our endeavours animate and nurture our lives giving them depth and meaning. It rejects that there is a collective, essential and unconscious human spirit underpinning our existence, connecting us all through our mutual striving. <b>ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination.</b> It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is <b>participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself</b> and, to put it politely, should fucking desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter. <img src="{att_link}contemplating_the_infinite.jpg" href="{att_link}contemplating_the_infinite.jpg" align="right" scale="40%"><b>ChatGPT’s intent is to eliminate the process of creation and its attendant challenges, viewing it as nothing more than a time-wasting inconvenience that stands in the way of the commodity itself.</b> Why strive?, it contends. Why bother with the artistic process and its accompanying trials? [...] <b>even though the creative act requires considerable effort, in the end you will be contributing to the vast network of love that supports human existence.</b> There are all sorts of temptations in this world that will eat away at your creative spirit, but none more fiendish than that boundless machine of artistic demoralisation, ChatGPT. [...] <b>It is our striving that becomes the very essence of meaning.</b> This impulse – the creative dance – that is now being so cynically undermined, must be defended at all costs, and just as we would fight any existential evil, we should fight it tooth and nail, for we are fighting for the very soul of the world.</bq> Another post from January <a href="https://www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/" author="Nick Cave" source="The Red Hand Files">Issue #218</a> first addressed LLMs, in what would eventually become the tour de force above, but which also had some wonderfully written prose about the difference between human creations versus those produced by imitation machines. <bq>What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. <b>It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.</b> Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, <b>algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing</b>, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. <b>ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.</b></bq>