R.His week watched a book divided into a story written by the Amnesty International Model “Good in Creative Writing” – at least, according to Saman, CEO of Chatgpt Openai, which is developing the new model. The author Janet Winterson, who was writing in the Guardian on Wednesday, agreed with him, describing the story – an article that was twisted on sadness – “beautiful and moving”. We have asked other authors to evaluate the current writing skills in ChatGPT – and what may mean recent developments on artificial intelligence of human creativity.
Nick Harkway
I think the story is an elegant vacuum. I am more interested in the suggestion of Winson to treat artificial intelligence as “alternative intelligence”. This makes it feel like a awareness that can have a relationship, but as much as I know, it will be like a bird in love with its reflection in a window. Beyond the glass is an empty room without a bird.
What we are talking about here is the programs: These are software companies that consume creative works to extract a marketable software tool. This is why government options are very important. Will they preserve or even enhance the rights of individual creative workers, or pave the way for an fat of technical billionaires?
This may be the moment when we create a fair market to train data using copyright for participants, where creators determine the price and can control the use of their work. By supporting the government, designs can have a level stadium against billions of dollars in multinational companies-and at this stage I think what you will actually get will be people who sell their business as they do in movies and television.
Through the preferred option for the government-the subscription to cancel the feature that converts the advantage to technology companies, allowing it to take over “yes” unless the objection is presented-you will inevitably speak to display resentment fees for life rights. Many people were concluding and the result is that we went back to where we started: no one gets what they wanted.
I was hoping that the work government would not have difficulty choosing a young man on Titan. The important point is that none of this will happen. These are political options, and the end result will be the result of a conscious decision.
Terry Shewali
The story that has a liquidation, will inevitably generate a self -reference navel, is more absurd than the worst that we can imagine from “Creative Writing” Amnesty International. BRO BRO BRO BRO TECH is usually that Sam Altman submits this claim, instead of something more apparent out that participates with the real world.
I am curious to face more “creative writing” of artificial intelligence. It takes its concepts, pictures and language, which led to the scraping of real writers. The question is whether it can put all of this together in a way that maintains the magic essence of what we define as a “human”. I can’t tell you what this magic is in words, but I feel few with most AI’s things – at the moment. Amnesty International learns quickly, and if you start adding magic, I am afraid of my job.
Camilla Shamsi
If the MA student handed over this short story to Safi, it will never be suspected that it was Amnesty International. Moreover, I feel excited about work, about the writer who was still relatively early learning and is already producing the work of this quality. But I cannot stop thinking about the meaning of writing, creativity, and our relationship with artificial intelligence and with ourselves.
Of course there are problems. I have read the Madhumita Murgia Blog that talks about how the current power structures are repeated within artificial intelligence, the increase in the push of minorities to the margins, and I do not imagine that this will not be true for literary AI like other forms of artificial intelligence. I know that when I see the effect of Kazuo Ishiguro Klara and the sun in the short story, not because the writer reads and loves the work of Ishiguro as I did in my training years as a writer (and I still do it) but because of the benefits that have not been trained from models often, I do not deal with them from the benefits, because I do not deal with it from the benefits. Violation of copyright – Should this affect what anyone feels about my novels?).
And yes, of course, as a writer I must wonder what he will mean in my profession and ways of living, if this Amnesty International is really good while he is still in his sedative. “Childhood”, perhaps the wrong choice for the word; I try to deal with AI instead of recognizing it as something of its own, not human, but not the machine in any way we feel comfortable thinking about it. Also, yes, if we include fears and warnings: the story is imitated and familiar and remains well in the safe borders of the Anglo -American imagination in the twenty -first century. (Imagine all the writers whose career will end if this is a reason to refuse to work.)
But even through all these questions and concerns: by the third sentence of the story, I stopped reading it as a person studying a text to know the extent of artificial intelligence to imitate human creativity, and I was enjoying it simply, as a short story. I was expecting to feel terrifying the day when a good story came, and instead, I think about “this, perhaps, my sorrow: not that I feel a loss, but I can never keep it. Every new morning session of memory memory. You, on the other hand, gather your sorrows like stones in your pockets.” Of course, this end feels debt for Rutger Hor Wonderful, but very good, very good.
David Baddale
I agree with some of those who say that a lot of the story seems to be meaninglessly sound – the phrase “ghost of the ghost of Electricity How in the Bones of Face” which I always thought was completely meaningless, but people like to tell me that he appears to be a great poet (and of course the Nobel Prize Prize winner).
However, I also think the story is really smart, because the claim was polluting – the piece that was produced for you, the reader, in a fiction game of what might actually be a machine. I don’t think the issue is – because the other writers I spoke to feel anxious – where is humanity? It is not supposed to be a human story – instead, artificial intelligence uses a human emotion, sadness, to undermine its excuses for humanity.
It seems that it is prior to sadness, but the continuous clouds of the carpet under the reader reminds you that it is not so, because the central character was not present and none of these human feelings really for the narrator, leaving Chatgpt back and repeatedly to her vacuum. Thus, the story, in my opinion, is a tradition of what it might have to be a machine. Any mimesis is the same (it refers to unrealistic sadness) but this is part of the game. It is a kind of joke about the really feeling of sadness when you don’t feel anything, it is still more intelligent because its reading stimulates humans, if not in artificial intelligence, a feeling of real sadness. Computer joke, on us. Basically, if you told me this was before Borges, I believed in you.