Yes, that's true. In fact, when I first asked "Chatty" to write the story, I really had no idea how long the response would be. I'm tempted to ask it to write a novel now.
I agree, Bretigne. Inspiration comes from a source that is as mysterious as it is unmistakeable. Like great art, it has its imitators, who try to replicate inspiration, but the experts are always able to discern the telltale signs of forgery. Life is about what is real, not what is fake. Pursuit of the fake will lead to false results. Only when true inspiration guides creativity will it have the mark of authenticity. There have been no other Shakespeare's, Mozarts or Rembrandts. Coke with high fructose corn syrup may be called "the real thing" but anyone can taste that it's a fraud. Life is real, not computer generated. The life-force is likewise detectable or notable for its absence in ways that can be sniffed out but not always described. AI has more danger of harming through its misuse than its proper use, which is quite limited. AI is basically a cheap imitation, and after all the hype and monetization, it will be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Yes, exactly. The things that make us human, and make our lives meaningful, are not things that can be easily described or categorized or replicated. There are certainly dangers to AI, but replacing us is not one of them.
Nicely done.
Mediocre, imitative writers and thinkers may rightly be terrorized at the prospect of AI taking their jobs.
Original writers and thinkers have nothing to worry about IMHO.
...except maybe for readers who can't tell the difference.
I think you told it to write “The Master and Margarita.”
Hahahahahaha! I have that sitting on a shelf somewhere.
ChatGPT can't emulate the style of Kurt Vonnegut because ChatGPT can't bring the themes and metaphors of Kurt Vonnegut to bear.
It invariably comes across as superficial because it IS superficial. Strip meaning away from art, from literature, and all that's left is just words.
It might be that for even Vonnegut to tell that story would take a book. So, asking ChatGPT to do what the author couldn't is unrealistic.
Yes, that's true. In fact, when I first asked "Chatty" to write the story, I really had no idea how long the response would be. I'm tempted to ask it to write a novel now.
I agree, Bretigne. Inspiration comes from a source that is as mysterious as it is unmistakeable. Like great art, it has its imitators, who try to replicate inspiration, but the experts are always able to discern the telltale signs of forgery. Life is about what is real, not what is fake. Pursuit of the fake will lead to false results. Only when true inspiration guides creativity will it have the mark of authenticity. There have been no other Shakespeare's, Mozarts or Rembrandts. Coke with high fructose corn syrup may be called "the real thing" but anyone can taste that it's a fraud. Life is real, not computer generated. The life-force is likewise detectable or notable for its absence in ways that can be sniffed out but not always described. AI has more danger of harming through its misuse than its proper use, which is quite limited. AI is basically a cheap imitation, and after all the hype and monetization, it will be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Yes, exactly. The things that make us human, and make our lives meaningful, are not things that can be easily described or categorized or replicated. There are certainly dangers to AI, but replacing us is not one of them.
This is great. Nice insight to help us writers wrap our heads around the implications of these droids.
Are we talking about the Kurt Vonnegut that died on April 11, 2007?
Yes, the very same.
Where does he work? :-)
LOL. Did you read the piece?
Did you follow the thread?