Can chatgpt make an actually good story?

[Finchbearer]

You're definitely not FB.

Or if you are, bring on more AI bots!

011010010111010010

 

[Finchbearer]

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.

Hard disagree. Especially if we’re talking about the masses.

 

[FifthView]

Hard disagree. Especially if we’re talking about the masses.

Who is the high arbiter of taste?

I'm fascinated by the idea, especially in our fast-paced world, how people will choose to spend hours reading something only because everyone else is doing it.

 

[Finchbearer]

Who is the high arbiter of taste?

I'm fascinated by the idea, especially in our fast-paced world, how people will choose to spend hours reading something only because everyone else is doing it.

Just think about how many ‘best sellers’ there are out there. Fifty Shades is as near a perfect example of this as I can think of. I know without a shadow of a doubt that people read that because everyone else was. Probably the same type of people who sat in their astroturfed garden supping Prosecco.

If that makes me a snob then I am okay with that.

 

[pmmg]

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.

To the degree that you are passing off your creative process to AI and then pretending it is your own, I think less of you.


There are many things I have read just because others were doing it. And many movies I went to see and all that. I have to do it to stay in the conversation. And since I am usually against whatever the group goes for, I am not always happy about it

 

[pmmg]

011010010111010010

Best seller!

 

[pmmg]

I am not sure those with astroturf yards are also pretending they have a green thumb, and are top of the line when it comes to gardening. If they are, they'd not like what I would say about their astroturf.

 

[pmmg]

Nuther AI thread.... round and round...

I'll wait till its over

 

[Devor]

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).

No . . . what I mean is, you're talking about art. But people are using this for everything. Scientists are using it to help them write grant requests so they can spend more time on the science. People are using it for therapy, or to help make a business or promotional plan. There's streamers on TikTok who uses AI images as the background for the stories they tell - the two I know of are both true stories (one on historical figures, one on true crime), but still very well written. And as people said earlier, it makes a great sounding board - you can definitely use it to brainstorm story stories ideas deeper and faster than you can without it.

I don't have any intention of using it to write a novel, and my book's been started and laid out and worldbuilt and all since before ChatGPT came out, so there isn't much it can help me with there either. But there are tons of ways it an help with promotions. And if anyone is thinking of spending $200 on a writing webinar, they'd probably be better off saving the money and asking ChatGPT how to be a better writer.

That is, if they know how to use it effectively.... a lot of people ask a few really generic questions, get a few really generic answers, and then dismiss it as all hype (though, some of the hype can get into the absurd).

 

[Ban]

I don't see the relevance. If a scientist can use AI, let them use AI. There's a marked difference between creative pursuits and non-creative pursuits here. This discussion is specifically about AI's application to the literary field. Let's compare it to another example; Facial recognition software. I can accept its limited use by police detectives in certain instances, but that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not I believe Meta should be allowed to use it. The technology can be the same, but the value judgement different.

As for the rest. I prefer humans are employed. That includes marketers, teachers, cover artists and more. If the costs of the service are prohibitive, I believe the best course of action is to become adept at that skill. Now you can say that is hard or unreasonable, and I can retort with saying "yes, and I still believe it." Comfort isn't the arbiter of proper action.

 

[Devor]

To the degree that you are passing off your creative process to AI and then pretending it is your own, I think less of you.

I understand where you're coming from. There's a lot of people out there throwing dirt-quality AI-generated junk around everywhere. I don't, by any means, want to sound like I'm supporting the widespread proliferation of slushy spam everywhere.

BUT, I also think you may be underestimating the ways that it can be used, and how much creativity actually goes into the inputs of using it effectively. There is a reason they're building these technologies into most high-end professional applications. It's because a creative professional can use them to get the same results in half the time. Everyone thinks of it as "Type in a sentence, it does everything for you." Professionals are using it on a much smaller, more granular level than that, and both exerting tight control over the input, as well as editing its output, to get to their vision faster.

 

[Devor]

I don't see the relevance. If a scientist can use AI, let them use AI. There's a marked difference between creative pursuits and non-creative pursuits here. This discussion is specifically about AI's application to the literary field. Let's compare it to another example; Facial recognition software. I can accept its limited use by police detectives in certain instances, but that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not I believe Meta should be allowed to use it. The technology can be the same, but the value judgement different.

The relevance is, I was clearly referring to its many different uses when I talked about the future and "holding you back," and not just to the question of art.

 

[Ban]

It wasn't clear to me considering the specific subject of this thread and the preceding comments, but sure, than we agree on that point. "Clearly" doesn't seem apt here, for it implies I should have expected a broadening of the conversation to all applications of the technology when I consistently voiced my concern over the literary applications. I don't need to debate its usage in the pharmaceutical industry. Let them have AI as we go without.

 

[Penpilot]

Who is the high arbiter of taste?

I'm fascinated by the idea, especially in our fast-paced world, how people will choose to spend hours reading something only because everyone else is doing it.

IMHO, some things are cultural touchstones, and people want to be a part of it. To some, not participating is to be left out. There's a huge FOMO factor that plays into things. To others it probably just curiosity. What the heck is this thing that everyone is focused on about?

For example, Barbenheimer. I have no interest in Barbie the movie. I have passing interest in the Oppenheimer movie. But they're both on my to-watch list. I hear they're both good movies, so I'm curious. And then there's the small part of me that just likes to poke my nose in on pop-culture just so I know what people cracking jokes about and maybe crack a few jokes about it myself.

 

[pmmg]

Barbenheimer.

Funny

 

[Mad Swede]

To give my answer to the OP's original question: No, not at the moment.

The reason I reply like that is based on some research I'm currently involved with. What we call AI is basically a series of algorithms which use pattern recognition and a store of data (in this case text) to produce text based on a prompt of some kind. Because of this the text it produces is relatively formulaic, both in terms of content and structure. It lacks what you might call human originality - and I suggest that it is this lack of human originality which stops AI-produced stories from being considered "good".

 

[Jackarandajam]

Barbenheimer

(The title of the NYT bestseller AI would instantly generate as soon as those titles were both trending, that millions of people would read and everyone would mock voraciously online, making it trend for ten weeks and making the creator millions off its viral content and quotes and memes. The movie adaptation would be the new sharknado, comically watched ad nauseum and the gifs would be everywhere. Welcome to our brave new world.)

 

[pmmg]

My strong, but investigated, suspicion is that in time, AI will be able to produce things that will be of such quality that it will be hard to detect what is AI and what is human content, and so it will be just too hard to tell who wrote what. But along with this, I think AI created content will fail to win over the market, as people in general will not find anything special in it. There will just be no marveling at the creativity or genius or ability of anyone using it. And without that, a large part of the allure goes away. We watch sometimes to see what we can do, and when everyone can do it, its just not special.

I think this has already hurt the movie industry, cause everyone knows with CGI and Green Screens, they can pretty much do anything, but its...boring. Gone is the feeling of 'How did they do that?' or 'Wow, I cant believe that dude survived that stunt'. The more it moves to just make it on a computer, and not actually doing it, the more people will find other stuff to look at instead.

 

[The Dark One]

Professionals are using it on a much smaller, more granular level than that, and both exerting tight control over the input, as well as editing its output, to get to their vision faster.

Before I was published (or had even finished a novel) I used to have this fantasy where I could just think up an idea, click my fingers, and the finished book would appear in my hand.

Years later, when finally holding my book (sitting among others in the store), I perceived that my original fantasy would have been a tragedy if it had truly come to pass. It was the journey that mattered - the difficulty, the discipline, the ongoing and concatenating inspiration, the craft, the learning, the loneliness, the rejection and the eventual joy... none of that would have happened if the book had just magically appeared.

Anything that shortens the journey reduces the experience... reduces the learning... reduces the ability to produce genuine quality.

It will be the death of (what I call) literature.

 

[Jackarandajam]

You know... does anybody else think it's weird that everybody started liking badly written YA fiction and generic electronic music RiGhT before AI suddenly appeared...?

Coincidence?