Can chatgpt make an actually good story?

[FifthView]

"Some writers confuse authenticity, which they ought always to aim at, with originality, which they should never bother about. There is a certain kind of person who is so dominated by the desire to be loved for himself alone that he has constantly to test those around him by tiresome behavior; what he says and does must be admired, not because it is intrinsically admirable, but because it is his remark, his act."

--W.H.Auden

Here there are a couple conceptual dichotomies: authenticity vs. originality, intrinsic worth vs ... personal idolatry? Ego?

I don't know if I can isolate the importance of authenticity in this discussion, heh, because I don't understand how the term would describe one work of speculative fiction versus another. Essays? Yes, I think. Poetry? I think so. But stories involving the kind of fantasy elements, plotlines, characters, etc., we find in novels?

Originality is easier to address. We're familiar with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun. Tropes, structures, plotlines, and so forth tend to reappear with great frequency. Indeed, it's not uncommon for readers to seek out the familiar. The poet Auden said in another essay, of the apprentice writer, "Later in life, incidentally, he will realize how important is the art of imitation, for he will not infrequently be called upon to imitate himself." Heh. How many authors can we name who basically write the same book over and over and over and keep selling copies?

ChatGPT in its current form may be unable to mimic authenticity, but I'm not sure avoiding imitation, repetition, and formulae is altogether important for its ultimate success.

In this limited case, authenticity might be in the presentation of an author's voice, giving readers the feeling they are being addressed on a somewhat personal, one-to-one basis. I suppose a kind of sympatico relationship develops when a reader is drawn into the fictional tale. Even if illusory, there's the sense that the author and reader are on the same wavelength, viewing these things together. If the author was able to view and/or experience these things directly, then the reader may as well. However, if the reader senses an emptiness on the other side of the words, this feeling isn't going to happen. I have encountered human authors who might as well have been imperfect, awkward AI lol.

The other conceptual dichotomy seems more important to me.

A certain streamer, who will go nameless so I don't have to deal with kneejerk reactions hah, frequently says that gamers don't care what the developers had to go through to make the game. Consumers only care about the end product. Intrinsic worth, as defined by the consumer, is what matters, and it matters far more than anything else heh. This may not be true of every consumer. Some consumers will make a habit of boycotting certain products because of how those products came to exist. But in the world of entertainment and entertainment consumption.... intrinsic worth reigns supreme. If ChatGPT, or any combo of ChatGPT and interactive human, creates an entertaining story, the vast majority of readers will not care that ChatGPT was involved in the process.

So I think it's coming, and it will probably become standard, as AI develops and humans develop interactive skills heh.

 

[Ban]

The moral failings of consumers shouldn't dictate the conduct of artists, and authenticity by definition can't be imitated. The customer is often wrong.

 

[pmmg]

Not saying all that is wrong, but the question is always about who you want to be, and who you are.

 

[FifthView]

I'm sure a large number of successful movie directors didn't care that a hundred, a thousand other voices helped them create their box office smashes.

 

[Ban]

You're conflating financial success with morality. Each and every person who worked on your movie example profited in terms of payment, status and employment. AI occupies the space in which a real, creative human being could reside. Every franchise that uses AI is complicit in 1. robbing past creatives through the manner of its data usage, and 2. denying employment to actual humans. AI doesn't provide a voice, it's a tool that steals voices.

 

[FifthView]

A director might achieve a personal vision with help from many. The financial profits are not necessarily the only goal or even the most important.

I don't think arguing morality will be productive here. I'd be inclined to bring up the blacksmiths who lost the horseshoe trade so authors don't have spend weeks traveling between signings.

 

[FifthView]

Not saying all that is wrong, but the question is always about who you want to be, and who you are.

This is an interesting question.

I don't know how much ego is involved, and I would suppose that is a personal question for each author. Is it important that the story came entirely from my brain, without input or aid from an AI? Or is it more important that I be able to present the story I want to present, even if I had AI help?

Then there is the third question regarding stories written only by AI, without a human author involved. But then wouldn't we have to ask the AI that question?

 

[Ban]

Right, and currently that personal vision is supplemented by a myriad of additional visions who each get to add a minute part. Through AI, the voices of all other workers are stifled, reducing the amount of professional satisfaction creatives have access to. As for the blacksmiths, you may bring them up. I'd rather like to live in a world full of horses and carriages. 'Tis a far better sight that asphalt and cars.

 

[Queshire]

I'm a simple Queshire. If AI is a risk of taking our jobs then AI is bad until society has enough of a financial safety net to make up for that risk.

 

[Devor]

You're conflating financial success with morality. Each and every person who worked on your movie example profited in terms of payment, status and employment. AI occupies the space in which a real, creative human being could reside. Every franchise that uses AI is complicit in 1. robbing past creatives through the manner of its data usage, and 2. denying employment to actual humans. AI doesn't provide a voice, it's a tool that steals voices.

There's two sides to this, though. AI can also empower independent creators to achieve things they couldn't do with the big budgets enterprises backing them. And the degree to which it steals - yes, I think it should be regulated on that point - but we're already seeing major outlets getting paid to have AI train on them, and the degree to which material is sliced up is going to put most of it in the fair use category - it's definitely possible to have one, or at least use one in a way that doesn't cross ethical lines.

Regardless, the technology isn't going anywhere. Hating on it too much is only going to keep people from learning how to use it - people whose livelihoods could someday depend on how much they're willing to learn how to use it. Within a few years elementary school children are going to have AI companions helping them with their homework and helping to grade their papers for their teachers. This technology is a major part of the near future. Fighting it will only hold you back.

 

[Ban]

You're right Devor that there is more than one side to this, but I should state that the financial troubles are a secondary concern for me. The major concern is the dehumanizing effect AI has on a distinctly human pursuit. Even if small, independent creators can leverage AI to their advantage, I still oppose it because it destroys the artisanry of literature. I am not a factory, I am a human being and I intend to keep it that way. Literature is one of the last creative fronts where a discipline must be mastered instead of directed through a machine. Simply because capitalist incentives and greedy Silicon Valley moguls have rendered the craft less profitable for traditional writers, doesn't mean I need to meekly follow the money or support those who do.

So no, I will continue hating it. Mammon doesn't need my praise, approval or acquiescence. With all due respect, I find the notion that sticking to a craft and embracing artisanry is "holding me back" instead of enriching me rather revolting.

 

[Jackarandajam]

If I were to take a wild stab in the dark, I'd say what is likely going to happen is the same as what we have in the music industry now: human artists/human groups vs. Low-art AI-generated earworm pop with a human face.
I don't like it, I think tech-generated art is a paradox no matter how well meaning the creator, but I think it will be considered with a fairly accurate assumption of its inherent low value.

 

[pmmg]

I'm sure a large number of successful movie directors didn't care that a hundred, a thousand other voices helped them create their box office smashes.

No....but if they are using AI do to their work for them, they also dont get to come to me later and call themselves directors.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Patterson has been doing essentially the same thing for years: coming up with a basic plot and feeding it to a team of ghost writers who whip out clinically formulaic summer bestsellers for the airport bookstores.
Still better than AI, but Patterson, with some early and occasional exceptions I think, doesn't deserve any more clout than someone who did it with a computer.

 

[Finchbearer]

The customer is unfortunately always ‘right’. That’s why we have things like astroturf. People like to choose convenience or what everyone else is getting over something that is essentially better. If you squint your eyes and look from a great distance astroturf might look like grass, but get a little closer and you can tell it’s fake, and pointless. And terrible for human-kind.

 

[pmmg]

Patterson has been doing essentially the same thing for years: coming up with a basic plot and feeding it to a team of ghost writers who whip out clinically formulaic summer bestsellers for the airport bookstores.
Still better than AI, but Patterson, with some early and occasional exceptions I think, doesn't deserve any more clout than someone who did it with a computer.

Of this, I am aware, and I dont think much of his 'writing' either.

 

[Ban]

Patterson has been doing essentially the same thing for years: coming up with a basic plot and feeding it to a team of ghost writers who whip out clinically formulaic summer bestsellers for the airport bookstores.
Still better than AI, but Patterson, with some early and occasional exceptions I think, doesn't deserve any more clout than someone who did it with a computer.

Perhaps so, but regardless of this Patterson's deplorable approach to writing, I'd still prefer those ghost writers have some professional venue for their craft. If that is under another's name, so be it.

 

[Devor]

I find the notion that sticking to a craft and embracing artisanry is "holding me back" instead of enriching me rather revolting.

Is that honestly what you believe I said?

ChatGPT is like having a conversation with the internet. There are plenty of ways to use it aside from having it do your writing for you.

 

[FifthView]

The customer is unfortunately always ‘right’. That’s why we have things like astroturf. People like to choose convenience or what everyone else is getting over something that is essentially better. If you squint your eyes and look from a great distance astroturf might look like grass, but get a little closer and you can tell it’s fake, and pointless. And terrible for human-kind.

I don't think people choose written fiction in the same way they choose practical products like astroturf. They are far more finicky when choosing the former.

 

[Ban]

Is that honestly what you believe I said?

ChatGPT is like having a conversation with the internet. There are plenty of ways to use it aside from having it do your writing for you.

Yes, you said "This technology is a major part of the near future. Fighting it will only hold you back." I don't see how else that could be interpreted. Now because I've known you for so long I don't believe you agree with the morality of that development, but I can still find the sentiment of surrendering itself appalling. I believe there is value in stubbornly sticking to artisanry regardless of others' adoption of the technology, and I can sneer at the adopters even if they find success (hell, especially). As for the type of usage, so far we have been talking about AI playing a significant part in the writing. If someone wished to do simple research with it, I of course have no more disdain for that than for opening a wikipedia page (I should clarify, that is none).