AI—iyiyi
Of course I’m following the AI news. As a former English teacher I still have a vested interest in how students might tap into ChatGPT and all its marketplace cousins. I thought running herd on suspected cut and paste and plagiarism was challenging, now there is the matter if the assignments are student-produced or bot-generated. Did I mention I’m glad I’m retired?
Now that I am retired I am focusing on my own writing. I am beginning to notice publishers are posting their own AI cautionaries on their websites, about appreciating AI, but wanting original work. Yes, we’ll see how that turns out.
Then I read how someone created a picture book by plugging in prompt directives. This did not go over well in the comments. I have enough competition from humans, I don’t want any from machines.*
I decided to take ChatGPT for a test drive. I plugged in the prompt: Create an enthusiastic book review for Syria’s Secret Library.
I had just finished the book and was about to write up my Goodreads review and was curious what the ChatGPT approach would produce.
In less than a minute, more like 30 seconds, I was reading a seven paragraph review that was disconcertingly well-written. On first reading. Here is the first paragraph:
Prepare to be whisked away on a remarkable and inspiring journey as Mike Thomson takes us deep into the heart of Syria’s Secret Library. This is a truly exceptional work that not only sheds light on the power of literature but also showcases the indomitable human spirit in the face of adversity.
A decent introduction, a bit more enthusiastic in praise style than I would write, yet decent.
On second reading I noticed more glowing praise; however, it was what I refer to as “frosting” in that it looks good but has little substance. My AP students would write “frosting” essays when they weren’t fully knowledgeable about the topic prompt. They would write around the topic without truly addressing it. The AI result was much the same. It addressed the book in a very general way and the paragraphs became repetitive in its praise due to lack of detail. It’s as if it read the book jacket instead of the book:
The characters in this book are genuine heroes, ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, fighting to protect the essence of their culture and to safeguard the treasures of human knowledge. Their commitment and sacrifice are truly awe-inspiring, and their stories will stay with you long after you finish reading.
Which characters? What sacrifices? How were their actions awe-inspiring? These would be comments I would write on a student paper. Details. Give me the “so what?”—get me interested by providing specific details.
Then again, maybe it’s dependent on how well the prompt is formed. I revised my original prompt to read: Create a positive book review for Syria’s Secret Library including specific details from the book such as names, places, and events.
Here is a paragraph from the revised review:
The book eloquently captures the power of literacy and the profound impact it had on the people of Daraya. It was heartwarming to read about how children like Waleed and Reem found solace and inspiration in the pages of books, transcending the horrors of war. The author skillfully weaves their personal stories with historical and cultural references, painting a rich tapestry of the Syrian people’s resilience and unwavering thirst for knowledge.
It now mentions the place: Daraya, yet who are Reem and Waleed? And therein lies the problem with trusting bot research—it can get it wrong. There is no Reem and Waleed in the book. At least the the story I read.
I keep reading incidents where people, as in professionals such as lawyers, are getting into BIG trouble when it is revealed that their documents are flawed because they trusted what the AI produced. (Why they didn’t fact check is a question I had).
Overall, I am concerned where AI writing dependencies are taking us in both the creative and professional realm. From my brief forays though, I’m not too worried about my day job as a writer being threatened, especially after the results from my prompt concerning a young boy, a grandmother and feeding birds and squirrels in the park. AIiyiyi it was that bad.
*quick segue—my summer binge is “Person of Interest” which is an older series how a billionaire computer whiz invented a machine that watches the population for acts of terrorism, but he uses it to help prevent crime. I find this 2011-2016 series still relevant in how artificial intelligence becomes smarter than its programming.
Pam Webb 