Said the literary agent Andrew Wylie, quoted in "When Ruthless Cultural Elitism Is Exactly the Job" (NYT). The NYT interviewer, David Marchese, had prompted him to talk about A.I.
I'm amused by Wylie's blithe snobbishness: That's got nothing to do with those of us who deal in literature.
I asked ChatGPT to write a blog post in the style of Salman Rushdie and assigned a topic — the subject of the previous post on this blog — home schooling. Here's the result, which I presume Rushdie would find hilariously inept:
Title: "The Enchantment of Uncharted Learning: A Home Schooling Odyssey"
Step into the enchanting world of home schooling, where the ordinary transforms into the extraordinary. In this realm, the kitchen table becomes a laboratory, the backyard a botanical garden, and the bookshelf a portal to far-off lands. Home schooling is an odyssey through the wonders of the world, both seen and unseen.
Here, education is not confined by rigid structures but is a living dialogue between teacher and student, parent and child. It is an ever-evolving narrative shaped by the unique interests and curiosities of those who inhabit the space. The magic lies in the freedom to tailor education to the individual needs of the learner, a bespoke suit of knowledge crafted to fit, nurture, and empower the burgeoning intellect.
Far from being insular, the social fabric of home education is woven with threads of community. In the age of digital connectivity, home schooling families form networks that transcend geographical boundaries, fostering a global village of learning. Amidst the challenges of the modern world, home schooling emerges not as an act of rebellion but as a celebration of autonomy—an acknowledgment that education is a lifelong journey, an odyssey of the mind that begins and continues in the heart of one's home. Join us on this uncharted learning adventure, where the pursuit of knowledge is guided by the gentle hum of curiosity.
Unfortunately, unlike Wylie, I do not have Salman Rushdie right here, close at hand, but speaking just for myself — as a blogger with some "gift in the nature of [my] expression" — I call that a thoroughly shitty exemplar of a blog post.
IN THE COMMENTS: Kate said:
Eventually AI will realize that if it's going to use the word "odyssey" in regards to Rushdie, it should mention cyclops island and the creature with one eye.
Posts
47 comments:
I have to say that I'm surprised at how readable the ChatGPT paragraphs are. They flow pretty well, they're not clunky in the way I'd expect from something like that. Still, they don't sound like Rushdie, and that's what he's probably reacting to.
Rushdie would write "global village". Also, ChatGPT used "suit" when it meant "suite" - a very rookie mistake.
Althouse writes, "I asked ChatGPT to write a blog post in the style of Salman Rushdie and assigned a topic..."
Are you certain you specified the style to be Salman Rushdie, the Anlgo-Indian novelist because there is apparently a Salman Rushdie in the Orlando time-share business?
There was a commenter that wrote just like that here. He/she would go on and on sounding mechanical. I can’t remember their screen name. Obama had some of that that ready-made sound in his book. Althouse took “Dreams of my Father” and dissected it here. Speaking of fun, that was kind of fun.
One of the problems for people who read a fair amount online is that -- for me at least -- if I came across that AI output and read/skimmed it very quickly, I'd leave with a few concepts or thoughts about homeschooling and move on, and not think too deeply about how void of useful/factual content it really is.
Eventually AI will realize that if it's going to use the word "odyssey" in regards to Rushdie, it should mention cyclops island and the creature with one eye.
I suppose AI could do Naked Came the Stranger which was deliberately written to be bad literature.
I call that a thoroughly shitty exemplar of a blog post.
I was going to insert my trademark snarkiness and assert that you’re just a computer-hating Luddite, but you’re right. That example blog post really is terrible.
A lousy blog post, but pretty good as a slick PR piece for homeschooling.
Not sure what it has to do with Rushdie.
If you had asked Chatgpt to compose the same in the style of Stephen King would he have our young protagonist, unbound by school committments, on a hilltop picking off drivers with a high powered rifle?
"Also, ChatGPT used "suit" when it meant "suite" - a very rookie mistake."
No, I'm pretty sure it meant "suit," because what's a "bespoke suite"? It's a metaphor, and a heavy handed one. Look at all the nudges to get you to get it:
"The magic lies in the freedom to tailor education to the individual needs of the learner, a bespoke suit of knowledge crafted to fit, nurture, and empower the burgeoning intellect."
I contended all through the writers' strike that writers of skill and talent had nothing to worry about. Asking AI to write, say, a rom-com turns out a hilariously inept script. However, if you asked it to write, say, a Billy Wilder script, AI might very well be able to turn out a serviceable draft that a skilled writer might be able to turn into something shootable. So as long as the prompts are disclosed, and credits (and $) allocated properly, what's the issue.
The people who should be most concerned are the staff columnists for the NYT. I've asked ChatGPT to compose Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman columns, and both were indistinguishable from the real work. So yeah, shitty writers are most at risk of being replaced.
Reading more closely, there's a "written by committee" feel to the ChatGPT, but plenty of magazines have that feel. It's not the work of someone really aiming for an individual style, which, as I said, would be something Rushdie would respond to. It has the readability of a house style, but no individuality.
It's such a bad metaphor!
1. It's as if knowledge goes on the outside and not inside your head.
2. Tailoring schooling to the individual is practical and has nothing to do with "magic."
3. How would a suit "nurture"?
It (the Rushdie home school simulation) sounds like corporate happy talk.
If you buy X premium, you can get on the wait-list for Musk's Grok.
My 2 comments show why trying to understand machine-written prose is a big waste of time. There's no person who chose to do that, whose meaning you might charitably discern. The words are chosen by a process that isn't about meaning but about resembling what human beings have done in the past.
Althouse asks:
3. How would a suit "nurture"?
It's the way for a man to get some nurture of his nature:
Clean shirt, new shoes
And I don't know where I am goin' to
Silk suit, black tie (black tie)
I don't need a reason why
… They come runnin' just as fast as they can
'Cause every girl crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man
Chat GPT writes like a 10th grader. But that's better than many adults, and it can write things like "how to change a tire' clearly. Yes, the web already has clearly written articles on how to change a tire, but AI will be at its best as a personal assistant, not a replacement for the web.
And a lot of blogs are these sort of 'spun' articles. Not the ones people read, but the ones that are just there to collect clicks and ad dollars.
"The words are chosen by a process that isn't about meaning but about resembling what human beings have done in the past."
I, maybe we should get hung up on Trump using the word "vermin".
Thanks professor.
Chat GPT writes like a 10th grader. But that's better than many adults, and it can write things like "how to change a tire' clearly.
I don't even mind it when it's in writing - as others here have said, it's easy to glean (that's one of the hot-button words, isn't it?) the useful information without feeling that I've missed an opportunity to marvel at the style. But when AI is (or seems to be) the narrator for a video, I'm bugged.
I was watching a video over on neo's blog about "The 10 Most Beautiful Sea Creatures," because who doesn't want to see some beautiful sea creatures? And it sounded as if the narration was written and performed by some AI thing. Took me right out of my enjoyment of the interesting beasties.
Too many cliches.
Sure, today the writing of the AI emulators is weak stuff. But give it time. Think of today's AI writers as the equivalent of the Wright Flyer. I expect a Space X starship level of writing will come along much faster than flight was developed.
It reads like something one might find in REDBOOK Magazine, or some other magazine directed at housewives. It is laden with sugardust and affirmation, emphasizing the "magic" that transpires in the process of home teaching, and between mother and child in the process. Quite generic and banal. The scary thing, as AI becomes more "knowledgeable" and more sophisticated, it will become more adroit at replicating copy in the house style of any publication, and, more unnerving, in the style of any writer with a recognizable style.
I asked it to write that "Salmon Rushdie" piece in the style of Hunter Thompson and I wasn't impressed. Here's the 2nd paragraph:
"In this parallel dimension of education, conformity is heresy, and the curriculum is a living, breathing entity shaped by the unpredictable dance of teacher and student, parent and child. It's an ever-shifting narrative, a kaleidoscope of knowledge painted with the broad strokes of curiosity and the fine lines of individualism. Here, the true sorcery lies in the alchemy of personalized education—a bespoke suit of wisdom, hand-tailored to cradle and fortify the nascent intellect."
Seems more like a bad Tom Wolfe than a bad Hunter Thompson.
Does Grok have a Soul Mode?
Your continued fascination (not quite obsession yet) with trying to match wits with ChatGPT to expose its shortcomings (and as I recall once even lawyerly trying to get it to admit it) is running out of time. Each new version is coming out better and faster. The free version is GPT3.5, but the latest paid version is GPT4 Turbo. More advanced versions are already in development. Enjoy the game while you still can.
And on another note, that's a clever trick asking "ChatGPT Jr" (still in AI middle school) to write something in the style of Salman Rushdie. I mean come on, does Salman Rushdie even really have a "style"?
Kate said...
“Eventually AI will realize that if it's going to use the word "odyssey" in regards to Rushdie, it should mention cyclops island and the creature with one eye.”
And the Honda minivan. With Magic Slide(tm) seats!
"More advanced versions are already in development. Enjoy the game while you still can."
I don't enjoy the "game."
But the question is whether Wylie is right, that real literature will always be different from A.I.
And then whether that becomes the test of literature: It's the thing that A.I. can't do.
And whether anyone will be left to write literature or to care about anything new.
Danielle Steel is even more susceptible to artificial intelligence.
If you've read her books, you'd know that there's no actual intelligence behind them, amirite...?
Who cares about "anything new" now? Most people ignore literature, and of those who care, many care about old stuff.
but is a living dialogue between teacher and student, parent and child.
This made my eyes roll.
Chat GPT sure does love big words. Does it get paid by the pound?
You should ask Chat what Hemingway would think of homeschooling. Lets read some lean spare prose.
Interesting that the programmers of Chat think "rebellion" is a bad thing. why isn't rebellion against the current establishment a good thing? Chat also loves diversity, globalism, and being challenged and nuturing while not actually doing any real indepenent thinking.
Chat writes for NYT's.
Was there an attempt to refine the product? I've found the more strings you attach the better that Chat produces - the trick is to be more specific about what you want.
It's inherent in AI that a loose spec will always be shallow because it's filling in what is most common for the specification. Not so different from anything else, better specification better product.
It may be a shitty blog post, but ChatGPT's heart is in the right place when doing Rushdie. Give it a year or two.
As an aside, the NYT bestseller list is not an objective list of the bestselling books. Its manipulated by the NYT's to show the books they think deserve to be shown on the list.
It may be a shitty blog post, but ChatGPT's heart is in the right place when doing Rushdie. Give it a year or two.
Salman Rushdie was a metaphor making man, and he swung those similes just as hard as the machine, but, like John Henry, we can only honor his effort but not his victory....What is peculiar to humanity is not brute strength, a facile way with words, sexual magnetism or whatever, but the feeling that these attributes are uniquely peculiar to one's version of humanity.....I made enough money to retire before I became obsolete so I'm good.
That ChatGTP Rushie blurb was better written than 99.99% of the humans in the US could produce given the same topic.
ChatGTP isn't going to put the Stephen Kings and Salman Rushdies out of business anytime soon, but they could put almost all journalists and pundits working today out of business by tomorrow.
Deirdre Mundy:
... but AI will be at its best as a personal assistant, not a replacement for the web.
But that won't be best for you. It will be best for the AI owner, 'cause just like your phone's operating system you won't own the software and you won't be in charge of either it's input database or it's updates.
People already swallow any damn text like a southeast Asian mosquito fish inhaling crumbs. Watch "Her" for a look at how people would attach to something like an AI "personal assistant".
Always consider just whose "assistant" it really is.
RMc:
Danielle Steel is even more susceptible to artificial intelligence.
If you've read her books, you'd know that there's no actual intelligence behind them, amirite...?
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."
Page from the Desk of Samuel Johnson:
In the dimly lit chamber of my solitude, where the flickering candlelight wrestles with the shadows dancing upon the walls, I, Samuel Johnson, laboriously pen down these reflections, grappling with the vastness of our linguistic landscape.
The dictionary, my magnum opus, a Herculean task undertaken with pen as my sword, has become a testament to the resilience of the English language. Word by word, I have sought to capture the unruly menagerie of our linguistic heritage, defining, elucidating, and encapsulating the very essence of human thought. A lexicographer's venture, a Sisyphean endeavor, it stands as a monument to the ceaseless evolution of our native tongue.
I feel that ChatGPT doesn't quite get the requirement that images must be consistent.
Example:
Home schooling "is a ... dialogue" but very soon it "is [a] ,,, narrative"
Home schooling tailors education like a custom made suit, i.e. an individual fit - good. But immediately we find the suit is nurturing. Nurturing. Well, if your very clothes are feeding you then, perhaps it's not surprising that the intellect is burgeoning which to me means bulging out of clothes. So that by the end of the sentence the homeschooled intellect is no longer svelte in a custom made suit but appears like to have beer belly to be bulging out of a ready made..
"to tailor education, ... a bespoke suit of knowledge ... to fit, nurture, and empower the burgeoning intellect"
I also tried out Chat GPT on an exotic writer + home schooling. I chose Finnegans Wake which Chat GPT transformed and summarized into a homeschooling report thus:
"Riverrun, homeschooling, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodious vicus of recirculation back to dear home education. Ah, the tidal flow of parental pedagogy, where the riverine syllables cascade and conjugate in the churning eddies of domestic edification.
In the murky morn of the day, the homeschooling matriarchs and patriarchs, wakeful sentinels, shepherd their progeny through the labyrinthine corridors of learning. The scholastic phantasmagoria unfolds, where algebraic incantations dance with the specters of historical epochs, and the periodic table becomes a sacrament of the atomic divine.
The dining table metamorphoses into a scholastic agora, where Socratic dialogues materialize over breakfast crumbs, and Pythagorean theorems sprout like mushrooms from the cerebrum. The Odyssey of knowledge embarks from the living room, navigating through the straits of literature, science, and art, guided by the compass of parental wisdom.
Yet, in the chiaroscuro of this homeschooling odyssey, challenges emerge like tempestuous squalls. The siren call of distractions beckons, luring the young minds into the whirlpools of digital reverie. The Homeric struggle to balance autonomy and guidance echoes through the halls of pedagogical endeavor.
The homeschooling saga, a chiaroscuro of love and labor, a tapestry woven with the warp of familial bonds and the weft of scholastic aspirations, unfurls its pages in the intimate amphitheater of home. As the sun sets on another day of domestic pedagogy, the lullaby of learning hums softly, a sonorous cadence echoing through the night, promising a morrow of renewed exploration along the riverrun of homeschooling."
Riverrun, a chiaroscuro tapestry unfolds its pages in sonorous cadence, humming riverrun.
I have a book in the planning stages. I asked ChatGPT to give me a 1,000 word biography of a particular person. I also asked it for 1,000 words on that person's notable accomplishment. Then I asked for 20 trivia questions and answers about that person and the accomplishment.
What I got back was better than any first draft I would ever write (My first drafts are always shite) As far as I could tell all the facts were correct.
I am sure that I can do better if I spend a bit more time formulating my inquiry.
I think what I got, in 15 minutes, would certainly serve as the basic framework for what I want to do. I would need to basically rewrite it a couple drafts till I would be satisfied But I think I can get a very good 1,000 words.
Certainly a useful tool for a writer. But chatGPT is probably not the writer itself.
I definitely plan to use it when I get into this book. Or "if". I am still finishing up 2 books ("Secrets of Liquid Filling" and republishing McConnell's 4 volumes on quality) But then I can get into this project.
John Henry
Chatgpt is the airplane in 1906.
Dismissing its potential based on current performance isn't clever.
catter:
Dismissing its potential based on current performance isn't clever.
Neither was projecting the advent of flying cars based on 1950s tech, but they did it anyway and people laughed at them for doing so. And the laughers were right.
Much of what people fantasize AI as doing beyond tech app (like say, a relatable assistant/friend) requires emotion. Emotions aren't logic. Many, if not all, aren't even initiated in the conscious portion of the brain. They're hormone driven and we have not a clue as to how to encode that into a logic system.
So using current programming technology, AI will at best be a version of the Enterprise's computer; ask it a question and get an answer; attempt to "relate" to it and two cameras will point at each other in complete befuddlement a la the Ringworld Puppeteers.
It will take an entirely new technology and programming like the scifi irridium sponge brain (Adam Link) or the positronic brain (Asimov) to empower that. Something more based on analog than binary.
2c
For a nice film representation I like Eva.
I read "positronic" brain as postironic brain.
It may take both.
Post a Comment