Having a new iPhone 15 this year, bought after many reviews suggested that it was the 'better' choice for a user like myself who did not need all the Pro features, and having assumed that it would be supported by Apple for at least a few years, I find myself feeling a bit angry at Apple. I know, I know... 'buyer beware', and 'you have a good phone so enjoy it', or 'time to upgrade LOL', but I feel that Apple knew that the iPhone 15 base was not going to have AI because of memory, which they could have easily bumped up for a few dollars more. If Apple thinks that they will get more money by having iPhone 15 owners upgrade, they may be waiting a long time. And Apple better support iOS 17 for a long time, because there is not a compelling reason to upgrade to iOS 18 apart from security updates and some window dressing. Sorry for the rant.
Having a new iPhone 15 this year, bought after many reviews suggested that it was the 'better' choice for a user like myself who did not need all the Pro features, and having assumed that it would be supported by Apple for at least a few years, I find myself feeling a bit angry at Apple. I know, I know... 'buyer beware', and 'you have a good phone so enjoy it', or 'time to upgrade LOL', but I feel that Apple knew that the iPhone 15 base was not going to have AI because of memory, which they could have easily bumped up for a few dollars more. If Apple thinks that they will get more money by having iPhone 15 owners upgrade, they may be waiting a long time. And Apple better support iOS 17 for a long time, because there is not a compelling reason to upgrade to iOS 18 apart from security updates and some window dressing. Sorry for the rant.
I did not think they were selling the iPhone 15 and 15 plus anymore, just the two pro models. Where did you buy your iPhone 15 from? You can still download iOS 18 onto your iPhone 15 even for the new non-AI features.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
Writers use the words and form they do for a reason. It’s called style and voice, and having one means bending the rules. Just as a wizard is neither early nor late, but arrives precisely when they mean to, a writer uses the words and form they do because that is how they get their message across. I suspect you would demand that Ginsberg had run Howl through an AI system to ‘correct’ the grammar errors? Perhaps you’d want one to bowdlerize To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22? Take any of these works and run them through the alimentary canal of an AI writing system and we all know what kind of a result would come out the bottom end. But I suspect that you prefer grammatically perfect pablum to actual writing.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
Agreed. It's about how people use or don't use the tools available. Some writers prefer to write by hand, some on a typewriter, some fully embrace word processing software. Pretty much all can benefit from editors. For those who don't have access to the staff at Harper Collins, maybe AI can be helpful. Anyone with a sense of the craft is going to use AI similarly to how thew would engage with an editor. Accept some changes, argue about others and change them back. For other non-artists, the tools could help them get a better result than they could produce on their own. A photographer who shoots film or raw digital with a proper camera in manual mode and then carefully processes the image to a final artistic result probably isn't going to replace their pro gear with an iPhone. On the other hand, the iPhone provides amateurs with vastly better results than the point and shoot gear previously available to them. And for that matter, a pro photographer can also produce great results from an iPhone as well, because they know that the best camera is always going to be the one that's available when they see that shot they want to get, and they know better than anyone what the iPhone imaging software is actually doing and can thus use it to the best effect possible.
I think the reactions to @DAalseth were about the self-brags that really don't add much to the conversation, other than to suggest in a backhanded way that any artist that does use those tools must be some sort of hack. If he does't want to use these tools, he doesn't have to use them, but that doesn't mean that no artist can use them with integrity. Truth is, there's no such thing as a purist writer or visual artist, because pencils, paper, brushes, paint and canvas are all "artificial" tools. I guess a purist writer could just verbally tell stories, but visual artists can't exist at all without "artificial" tools.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
Writers use the words and form they do for a reason. It’s called style and voice, and having one means bending the rules. Just as a wizard is neither early nor late, but arrives precisely when they mean to, a writer uses the words and form they do because that is how they get their message across. I suspect you would demand that Ginsberg had run Howl through an AI system to ‘correct’ the grammar errors? Perhaps you’d want one to bowdlerize To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22? Take any of these works and run them through the alimentary canal of an AI writing system and we all know what kind of a result would come out the bottom end. But I suspect that you prefer grammatically perfect pablum to actual writing.
Uhhh huh.... so in your initial comment you intentionally misspelled Genmoji and Inbox for style and voice, those weren't just mistakes. And your lack of punctuation between FindMy and Hearing Health which seems to create a new product called "FindMy Hearing Health" was a flourish, totally not a mistake. Here is the thing, it's okay to make mistakes. It's even more okay to use the tools at your disposal to correct mistakes. Or, I guess you can dig in and try to spin them in a totally ludicrous way.
You are correct though, writers choose words for reason. You know what else writers do? Use editors. You know why? Because even the best writers make mistakes. Harper Lee used an editor and Joseph Heller worked with an editor. Ginsberg worked with editors in his career as well, though I don't know that he did with Howl. Given that it started as a live performance piece and transition to print makes me think he likely didn't. In all three cases the authors still managed to produce works that were stylistically unique, despite having people read them and recommend changes. An AI copy editor is no different than a human one. It will recommend changes and it is up to the author to decide if they want to incorporate them or not. Acting like having AI proofread something will somehow force changes that are negative is just disingenuous. Perhaps you don't actually understand the technology you are commenting on, that would also explain your comments. On second thought, that may be it especially since you seem to think ChatGPT is just a writing tool and seemingly unaware of the plethora of other ways that it can be used.
And seriously, I am a bit shocked to find out that someone that is a writer was completely unaware that writers have historically worked with editors to improve the quality of their work.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
Writers use the words and form they do for a reason. It’s called style and voice, and having one means bending the rules. Just as a wizard is neither early nor late, but arrives precisely when they mean to, a writer uses the words and form they do because that is how they get their message across. I suspect you would demand that Ginsberg had run Howl through an AI system to ‘correct’ the grammar errors? Perhaps you’d want one to bowdlerize To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22? Take any of these works and run them through the alimentary canal of an AI writing system and we all know what kind of a result would come out the bottom end. But I suspect that you prefer grammatically perfect pablum to actual writing.
You know what else writers do? Use editors.
Yes and I have one. We work well together. But I only call them in when I’m getting paid, not for a silly web post. Get Real.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
Writers use the words and form they do for a reason. It’s called style and voice, and having one means bending the rules. Just as a wizard is neither early nor late, but arrives precisely when they mean to, a writer uses the words and form they do because that is how they get their message across. I suspect you would demand that Ginsberg had run Howl through an AI system to ‘correct’ the grammar errors? Perhaps you’d want one to bowdlerize To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22? Take any of these works and run them through the alimentary canal of an AI writing system and we all know what kind of a result would come out the bottom end. But I suspect that you prefer grammatically perfect pablum to actual writing.
You know what else writers do? Use editors.
Yes and I have one. We work well together. But I only call them in when I’m getting paid, not for a silly web post. Get Real.
See, this exactly the kind of situation where Writing Tools are helpful. A free editor for less important things. You are sooooo close to getting it.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
Writers use the words and form they do for a reason. It’s called style and voice, and having one means bending the rules. Just as a wizard is neither early nor late, but arrives precisely when they mean to, a writer uses the words and form they do because that is how they get their message across. I suspect you would demand that Ginsberg had run Howl through an AI system to ‘correct’ the grammar errors? Perhaps you’d want one to bowdlerize To Kill a Mockingbird or Catch 22? Take any of these works and run them through the alimentary canal of an AI writing system and we all know what kind of a result would come out the bottom end. But I suspect that you prefer grammatically perfect pablum to actual writing.
You know what else writers do? Use editors.
Yes and I have one. We work well together. But I only call them in when I’m getting paid, not for a silly web post. Get Real.
I think the real question is: what compelled you to declare a list of tools and features you wouldn't be using? As a writer and artist, you know there's the literal and the subtext. What you literally wrote was a list of features that don't interest you, but did you take the time to tell no one in general about that, or was there a subtext? Are you saying they shouldn't make those tools for anyone? Are you saying "real" writers and artists won't use them? What is the writer really trying to say here?
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
Agreed. It's about how people use or don't use the tools available. Some writers prefer to write by hand, some on a typewriter, some fully embrace word processing software. Pretty much all can benefit from editors. For those who don't have access to the staff at Harper Collins, maybe AI can be helpful. Anyone with a sense of the craft is going to use AI similarly to how thew would engage with an editor. Accept some changes, argue about others and change them back. For other non-artists, the tools could help them get a better result than they could produce on their own. A photographer who shoots film or raw digital with a proper camera in manual mode and then carefully processes the image to a final artistic result probably isn't going to replace their pro gear with an iPhone. On the other hand, the iPhone provides amateurs with vastly better results than the point and shoot gear previously available to them. And for that matter, a pro photographer can also produce great results from an iPhone as well, because they know that the best camera is always going to be the one that's available when they see that shot they want to get, and they know better than anyone what the iPhone imaging software is actually doing and can thus use it to the best effect possible.
I think the reactions to @DAalseth were about the self-brags that really don't add much to the conversation, other than to suggest in a backhanded way that any artist that does use those tools must be some sort of hack. If he does't want to use these tools, he doesn't have to use them, but that doesn't mean that no artist can use them with integrity. Truth is, there's no such thing as a purist writer or visual artist, because pencils, paper, brushes, paint and canvas are all "artificial" tools. I guess a purist writer could just verbally tell stories, but visual artists can't exist at all without "artificial" tools.
You pretty much nailed it in that second paragraph. DAalseth was just being weirdly condescending in their post, it just comes of as being super insecure.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
In retrospect I should not have used the term "adulterated" because it carries too strong of a negative connotation. I should have used the term "altered" instead even though there are alterations that some people may view as adulterations. Maybe I should have used a grammar checker!
My intention here was not to talk about spelling, grammar, and editing alterations. Those are trivial cases. When I'm talking about writing I'm talking about the composition, storytelling, and creative aspects that differentiate one writer from another writer in very distinct and observable ways. If the books by a famous writer are the result of a collaborative effort and maintain fidelity to the writer's intention in a way that readers relate to, I see no problem.
The focus of newer AI tools isn't really about spelling, grammar, or editing, it's about generating a product using raw material from a human, or keywords supplied by a human, to generate a result that fits a perceived model or target audience such as a business presentation, informal presentation, legal document, presentation within a specific problem domain, professional society papers, international standards documents, etc.
When I refer to musical production I am not talking about remixing, rebalancing, remastering, overdubbing, using tube amps over solid state amps, using feedback, reverb, echo, sustain, etc. I'm talking about tools like Autotune (live) and pitch correction software (post processing) that fundamentally change a singer's voice to be something that it is not and never was. The resulting composition is absolutely artistic expression using human + machine contributions. If an artist wants to use tools or AI processing to alter their voice it's up to listeners to decide whether they prefer the human version or the human + machine version of the artist's voice. A large percentage of currently produced music is of the latter variety and it obviously has a wide audience. But some people still want to hear the unaltered human voice, especially when the artist has a beautiful voice. Is this right or wrong? Neither.
Nowhere in my comment did I say that alterations made by tools or AI are inherently better or worse. It's all subjective and based on the intention of the creator. What I did say is that some people prefer the altered form and some people prefer the natural/human form. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, or in kinder words "personal taste," and everyone should be free to express what they like and what they do not like without being accused of being condescending or eliciting a condescending response.
One universal question surrounding AI in its current and still unrefined state Is whether it is part of a creative process or is its part of an industrial or "production" process? It's no longer simply a question of whether your car was welded together by people or by robots. We're talking human creativity versus generated AI. I think there's room for both and hope that human creativity survives.
The focus of newer AI tools isn't really about spelling, grammar, or editing, it's about generating a product using raw material from a human, or keywords supplied by a human, to generate a result that fits a perceived model or target audience such as a business presentation, informal presentation, legal document, presentation within a specific problem domain, professional society papers, international standards documents, etc.
Context is important. So for context, DAalseth said that they had no use for Apple's Writing Tools. Apple's Writing Tools don’t generate material. It takes something a person wrote and will allow you to alter it. That altering comes in the form of proofreading for grammar and spelling, summarizing, and changing tone. That was what DAalseth was saying was totally unnecessary because they are a writer. In that context, I pointed out that their comment could have benefited from a spell and grammar check, which Writing Tools offers. Making this about AI-generated works is making it about something other than what was being discussed.
When I refer to musical production I am not talking about remixing, rebalancing, remastering, overdubbing, using tube amps over solid state amps, using feedback, reverb, echo, sustain, etc. I'm talking about tools like Autotune (live) and pitch correction software (post processing) that fundamentally change a singer's voice to be something that it is not and never was. The resulting composition is absolutely artistic expression using human + machine contributions. If an artist wants to use tools or AI processing to alter their voice it's up to listeners to decide whether they prefer the human version or the human + machine version of the artist's voice. A large percentage of currently produced music is of the latter variety and it obviously has a wide audience. But some people still want to hear the unaltered human voice, especially when the artist has a beautiful voice. Is this right or wrong? Neither.
All of the things you are not talking about are things that alter the sound and create something that "never was". If a signer does multiple takes and the final recording is pieced together to form the final recording, it is a performance that never was. You are arbitrarily singling out autotune as being different. It isn't. It is a tool that musicians use, just like compression, delay, reverb, multitracking, overdubs, and just about anything else used in a studio. I totally agree that it is up to the user to decide if they like the final product, but I am not down with selectively singling out a single tool as somehow not real.
Nowhere in my comment did I say that alterations made by tools or AI are inherently better or worse. It's all subjective and based on the intention of the creator. What I did say is that some people prefer the altered form and some people prefer the natural/human form. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, or in kinder words "personal taste," and everyone should be free to express what they like and what they do not like without being accused of being condescending or eliciting a condescending response.
Totally agree, and Dalaleth didn't simply state a personal taste. It was a statement about being better than needing any tools because they are a writer. It also was a spectacular self-own, as the comment could have benefited from proofreading, and they later went on to acknowledge that they did in fact use tools (an editor) to help with their writing. So much for being too good for tools.
One universal question surrounding AI in its current and still unrefined state Is whether it is part of a creative process or is its part of an industrial or "production" process? It's no longer simply a question of whether your car was welded together by people or by robots. We're talking human creativity versus generated AI. I think there's room for both and hope that human creativity survives.
Here I disagree. This question is far older than AI. Any time an artist does something different, uses a new tool, or interprets art differently, they are accused of not actually being creative. Andy Warhol is a great example. In music, the early users of synths, drum machines, and sampling were not seen as real musicians. Science fiction wasn't seen as real literature. Photoshop wasn't seen as a tool used in art. Early DAWs were seen as some sort of cheating. Digital photography wasn't real photography. Computational photography wasn't seen as real. Generative AI is just another thing in that long list; people will figure out how to use it in creative ways, and it will become generally accepted.
I’ll be upgrading for the security patches. I don’t see anything else I need/want.
ChatGPT, writing tools, I am a writer, i don’t need a GD AI tool to write. Hard no.
Visual Intelligence and Camera Controls, don’t have an iPhone 16
Image Playground, I am an artist I don’t need a GD AI tool to make art. Hard no.
Genmogi, I already don’t use Memoji and almost no Emoji, pass
Email categorization, replace my one in box with 4, maybe some people would find that useful, for me it’ll stay firmly off
FindMy Hearing Health, these sound like they might be useful, except I don’t own any AirTags or AirPods so they won’t be for me.
Hey Writer, If you had used the Proof Read feature in Writing Tools, it would have caught your various grammatical and spelling errors.
I wouldn’t dismiss @DAalseth’s points out of hand. If you consider his point of view a lot of these new tools are similar in many ways to AutoTune and pitch correction software that is in widespread use in music performance and production. You are taking something generated by a human and running it through processing to transform it into something else that is now detached from its originator. Saying that the altered form is “better” is subjective depending on your own personal definition. From an industrialization point of view human generated expression that’s been modified and tuned to match an accepted “standard” is fine if accuracy and fidelity is graded using industrial or quantitative analysis.
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
In retrospect I should not have used the term "adulterated" because it carries too strong of a negative connotation. I should have used the term "altered" instead even though there are alterations that some people may view as adulterations. Maybe I should have used a grammar checker!
My intention here was not to talk about spelling, grammar, and editing alterations. Those are trivial cases. When I'm talking about writing I'm talking about the composition, storytelling, and creative aspects that differentiate one writer from another writer in very distinct and observable ways. If the books by a famous writer are the result of a collaborative effort and maintain fidelity to the writer's intention in a way that readers relate to, I see no problem.
The focus of newer AI tools isn't really about spelling, grammar, or editing, it's about generating a product using raw material from a human, or keywords supplied by a human, to generate a result that fits a perceived model or target audience such as a business presentation, informal presentation, legal document, presentation within a specific problem domain, professional society papers, international standards documents, etc.
When I refer to musical production I am not talking about remixing, rebalancing, remastering, overdubbing, using tube amps over solid state amps, using feedback, reverb, echo, sustain, etc. I'm talking about tools like Autotune (live) and pitch correction software (post processing) that fundamentally change a singer's voice to be something that it is not and never was. The resulting composition is absolutely artistic expression using human + machine contributions. If an artist wants to use tools or AI processing to alter their voice it's up to listeners to decide whether they prefer the human version or the human + machine version of the artist's voice. A large percentage of currently produced music is of the latter variety and it obviously has a wide audience. But some people still want to hear the unaltered human voice, especially when the artist has a beautiful voice. Is this right or wrong? Neither.
Nowhere in my comment did I say that alterations made by tools or AI are inherently better or worse. It's all subjective and based on the intention of the creator. What I did say is that some people prefer the altered form and some people prefer the natural/human form. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, or in kinder words "personal taste," and everyone should be free to express what they like and what they do not like without being accused of being condescending or eliciting a condescending response.
One universal question surrounding AI in its current and still unrefined state Is whether it is part of a creative process or is its part of an industrial or "production" process? It's no longer simply a question of whether your car was welded together by people or by robots. We're talking human creativity versus generated AI. I think there's room for both and hope that human creativity survives.
Interestingly, when the Beatles started their tenure in the early 1960s as recording artists at EMI, they routinely would “double track,” or overdub a second vocal, sung in unison with the first, with the slight variations between the two yielding a fuller sounding vocal track. Does that make it something that “is not and never was”? Soon enough, the EMI boffins put together an “automatic double track” device that used tape delay and an oscillator to use a single vocal track to create a second, with simulated slight variations, that, reassembled with the first, generated the fuller toned double tracking effect as a post-production process. The Beatles loved this labor-saving device. That’s surely a machine making something that “is not and never was.” Moving further forward, John Lennon famously liked to seek out numerous new ways to alter his vocals - like putting them through a spinning Leslie organ speaker - absolutely with the purpose of making something that is not and never was. Particularly after they quit touring, the Beatles leaned hard into using the recording studio as an instrument itself, creating performances that were, at the time, impossible to perform live.
Any of the tools in a studio from the 60s to now can be used by talentless hacks to create sounds they can’t make on their own, but that doesn’t make those tools the exclusive purview of talentless hacks.
In fact, I would about guarantee that Paul McCartney, whose 80-something year old voice simply can’t be what it once was, has used autotune to smooth things out on more recent recordings. I for one am thrilled that tool is available to enable him to continue being prolific.
There’s just isn’t a hard line between tools that are “real” and “not real.” It’s all about how they’re used.
Comments
However, there are still a lot of people who deeply enjoy the expression that exists in human generated content that is coming directly from the person, in unadulterated form. I wouldn’t want to read a Charles Dickens or Mark Twain novel run through an AI process to “clean up” the supposed anomalies. Some people probably would like the adulterated versions better. In any case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal preferences and there’s nothing to be gained by insulting people for their beliefs.
Both Dickens and Twain used editors*, specifically they both used copy editors who would catch things like grammatical and spelling mistakes, "clean up" as you call it. Further editors will often make suggestions on different word choice, punctuation and phrasing just to help with readability and flow. So the idea that you are reading an unadulterated form of their work is just incorrect. What we are talking bout is having AI do copy editing vs. having a person do it. It is the exact same process you arbitrary decided the AI doing the work adulterates the work and having a human do it leaves it unadulterated.
Your stance on music creation is equally problematic. Musicians have been doing work to alter sounds well before digital recording was a thing. Rooms are designed to sound a certain way, instruments are altered to force a change in sound, effects have been created. The person is intentionally changing the output to achieve the artist expression they want. Just because that can be digitally done doesn't change what is happening or the purity of the work. It isn't about better or worse. It is about artists using the tools they have to make their achieve the vision. You may not be into what they are doing but it doesn't make it less than or not their creation.
*Mark Twain was also an editor, that means he was out there "adulterating" other people's works. What a monster.
I think the reactions to @DAalseth were about the self-brags that really don't add much to the conversation, other than to suggest in a backhanded way that any artist that does use those tools must be some sort of hack. If he does't want to use these tools, he doesn't have to use them, but that doesn't mean that no artist can use them with integrity. Truth is, there's no such thing as a purist writer or visual artist, because pencils, paper, brushes, paint and canvas are all "artificial" tools. I guess a purist writer could just verbally tell stories, but visual artists can't exist at all without "artificial" tools.
My intention here was not to talk about spelling, grammar, and editing alterations. Those are trivial cases. When I'm talking about writing I'm talking about the composition, storytelling, and creative aspects that differentiate one writer from another writer in very distinct and observable ways. If the books by a famous writer are the result of a collaborative effort and maintain fidelity to the writer's intention in a way that readers relate to, I see no problem.
The focus of newer AI tools isn't really about spelling, grammar, or editing, it's about generating a product using raw material from a human, or keywords supplied by a human, to generate a result that fits a perceived model or target audience such as a business presentation, informal presentation, legal document, presentation within a specific problem domain, professional society papers, international standards documents, etc.
When I refer to musical production I am not talking about remixing, rebalancing, remastering, overdubbing, using tube amps over solid state amps, using feedback, reverb, echo, sustain, etc. I'm talking about tools like Autotune (live) and pitch correction software (post processing) that fundamentally change a singer's voice to be something that it is not and never was. The resulting composition is absolutely artistic expression using human + machine contributions. If an artist wants to use tools or AI processing to alter their voice it's up to listeners to decide whether they prefer the human version or the human + machine version of the artist's voice. A large percentage of currently produced music is of the latter variety and it obviously has a wide audience. But some people still want to hear the unaltered human voice, especially when the artist has a beautiful voice. Is this right or wrong? Neither.
Nowhere in my comment did I say that alterations made by tools or AI are inherently better or worse. It's all subjective and based on the intention of the creator. What I did say is that some people prefer the altered form and some people prefer the natural/human form. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, or in kinder words "personal taste," and everyone should be free to express what they like and what they do not like without being accused of being condescending or eliciting a condescending response.
One universal question surrounding AI in its current and still unrefined state Is whether it is part of a creative process or is its part of an industrial or "production" process? It's no longer simply a question of whether your car was welded together by people or by robots. We're talking human creativity versus generated AI. I think there's room for both and hope that human creativity survives.
All of the things you are not talking about are things that alter the sound and create something that "never was". If a signer does multiple takes and the final recording is pieced together to form the final recording, it is a performance that never was. You are arbitrarily singling out autotune as being different. It isn't. It is a tool that musicians use, just like compression, delay, reverb, multitracking, overdubs, and just about anything else used in a studio. I totally agree that it is up to the user to decide if they like the final product, but I am not down with selectively singling out a single tool as somehow not real.
Totally agree, and Dalaleth didn't simply state a personal taste. It was a statement about being better than needing any tools because they are a writer. It also was a spectacular self-own, as the comment could have benefited from proofreading, and they later went on to acknowledge that they did in fact use tools (an editor) to help with their writing. So much for being too good for tools.
Here I disagree. This question is far older than AI. Any time an artist does something different, uses a new tool, or interprets art differently, they are accused of not actually being creative. Andy Warhol is a great example. In music, the early users of synths, drum machines, and sampling were not seen as real musicians. Science fiction wasn't seen as real literature. Photoshop wasn't seen as a tool used in art. Early DAWs were seen as some sort of cheating. Digital photography wasn't real photography. Computational photography wasn't seen as real. Generative AI is just another thing in that long list; people will figure out how to use it in creative ways, and it will become generally accepted.
is available to enable him to continue being prolific.