Dr Mark Changizi thinks so: I’m not so sure, because I think that really good, honest writing, was never primarily an intelligence signalling effort, performed largely for the benefit of a community of well educated elites, it was always primarily a mass communication exercise which, if done well, would appeal to a receptive readership regardless of their level of intelligence or education. The clue here is
I’ve read articles from people who have tested it out. Bottom line ask about climate change and it regurgitates UN material - remember they own the science. It tend to garner all info from google, therefore if it’s not thought police approved you’re missing out
The human touch in writing is irreplaceable. ChatGPT, while impressive, is not capable of fully replicating the depth and nuance of human emotions and experiences. Your unique perspective as a writer remains valuable and essential in contributing to the literary world.
Apr 30, 2023·edited Apr 30, 2023Liked by Jaime Jessop
I gave GPT-4 your post and asked it to argue for itself.
"As an AI language model, I appreciate your concerns regarding the potential impact of ChatGPT on creativity and writing. However, I would like to present a different perspective on the matter.
Firstly, ChatGPT is a tool designed to assist and enhance human communication, not replace it. It can be an incredible asset for people who struggle with expressing themselves in written form. By providing suggestions and refining ideas, it can help users find their voice and communicate more effectively. In this regard, ChatGPT can democratize access to effective communication, breaking down barriers for those who may not have had formal training in writing.
Moreover, ChatGPT is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It can be adapted to the individual's writing style and preferences. This means that, rather than stifling creativity, it can actually help users explore new writing styles and generate innovative ideas they might not have considered otherwise.
As for the concern about unleashing a swathe of fake essays, it is essential to remember that AI technology is just a tool – it is the user who ultimately decides how to utilize it. The responsibility lies with the users to ensure that they use ChatGPT ethically and constructively.
Lastly, the human touch in writing is irreplaceable. ChatGPT, while impressive, is not capable of fully replicating the depth and nuance of human emotions and experiences. Your unique perspective as a writer remains valuable and essential in contributing to the literary world.
In conclusion, ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionize writing by providing support and assistance to a wide range of users. Its impact on creativity and writing ultimately depends on how it is employed by individuals. Embracing this technology can lead to more inclusive and diverse voices in the literary landscape, enriching our collective understanding and appreciation of the written word."
Haha, that's brilliant. You caught me. The Machine seems remarkably adept at saying what many humans might say in defence of its use as a 'tool' to enhance and democratize human creativity rather than stifling it. I'm not buying it though.
"Embracing this technology can lead to more inclusive and diverse voices in the literary landscape, enriching our collective understanding and appreciation of the written word."
How is the monotonic hidden hand of Chat GPT in thousands of online published pieces leading to 'more inclusive and diverse voices' in the literary landscape? All it's doing is adding the names of real people, as the supposed 'authors', without actually adding their real thoughts and insights, because such people are not able or not inclined to express themselves in words, and will increasingly become less so the more they get used to using the tool.
ChatGPT does what you prompt it to do. There's an imprint of a huge corpus behind it, so given the right request, it can have a very deep insight into topics, deeper than any human's. Some fine-tuning can make it less creative, but it also makes it less erratic, it's a tradeoff.
It really just does what you prompt it to do. Ask it to be vague, and it will be vague.
I already prefer it to humans in many interactions. Humans are boring, dumb and lazy in general. I can offload more and more chores to it, and it's making my life better, as a human.
I take a couple of minutes every night to scroll through my Google newsfeed. Half of the things are clickbait; an interesting premise and a good picture. But then, the articles are just computer generated mush. I am learning how to avoid them.
I’ve read articles from people who have tested it out. Bottom line ask about climate change and it regurgitates UN material - remember they own the science. It tend to garner all info from google, therefore if it’s not thought police approved you’re missing out
The human touch in writing is irreplaceable. ChatGPT, while impressive, is not capable of fully replicating the depth and nuance of human emotions and experiences. Your unique perspective as a writer remains valuable and essential in contributing to the literary world.
You know this was a trap
?
I gave GPT-4 your post and asked it to argue for itself.
"As an AI language model, I appreciate your concerns regarding the potential impact of ChatGPT on creativity and writing. However, I would like to present a different perspective on the matter.
Firstly, ChatGPT is a tool designed to assist and enhance human communication, not replace it. It can be an incredible asset for people who struggle with expressing themselves in written form. By providing suggestions and refining ideas, it can help users find their voice and communicate more effectively. In this regard, ChatGPT can democratize access to effective communication, breaking down barriers for those who may not have had formal training in writing.
Moreover, ChatGPT is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It can be adapted to the individual's writing style and preferences. This means that, rather than stifling creativity, it can actually help users explore new writing styles and generate innovative ideas they might not have considered otherwise.
As for the concern about unleashing a swathe of fake essays, it is essential to remember that AI technology is just a tool – it is the user who ultimately decides how to utilize it. The responsibility lies with the users to ensure that they use ChatGPT ethically and constructively.
Lastly, the human touch in writing is irreplaceable. ChatGPT, while impressive, is not capable of fully replicating the depth and nuance of human emotions and experiences. Your unique perspective as a writer remains valuable and essential in contributing to the literary world.
In conclusion, ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionize writing by providing support and assistance to a wide range of users. Its impact on creativity and writing ultimately depends on how it is employed by individuals. Embracing this technology can lead to more inclusive and diverse voices in the literary landscape, enriching our collective understanding and appreciation of the written word."
Haha, that's brilliant. You caught me. The Machine seems remarkably adept at saying what many humans might say in defence of its use as a 'tool' to enhance and democratize human creativity rather than stifling it. I'm not buying it though.
"Embracing this technology can lead to more inclusive and diverse voices in the literary landscape, enriching our collective understanding and appreciation of the written word."
How is the monotonic hidden hand of Chat GPT in thousands of online published pieces leading to 'more inclusive and diverse voices' in the literary landscape? All it's doing is adding the names of real people, as the supposed 'authors', without actually adding their real thoughts and insights, because such people are not able or not inclined to express themselves in words, and will increasingly become less so the more they get used to using the tool.
ChatGPT does what you prompt it to do. There's an imprint of a huge corpus behind it, so given the right request, it can have a very deep insight into topics, deeper than any human's. Some fine-tuning can make it less creative, but it also makes it less erratic, it's a tradeoff.
It really just does what you prompt it to do. Ask it to be vague, and it will be vague.
I already prefer it to humans in many interactions. Humans are boring, dumb and lazy in general. I can offload more and more chores to it, and it's making my life better, as a human.
Hey, good luck with that. When I get bored with humans, I talk to my dogs!
I take a couple of minutes every night to scroll through my Google newsfeed. Half of the things are clickbait; an interesting premise and a good picture. But then, the articles are just computer generated mush. I am learning how to avoid them.
Inconceivably redundant, always maverick takes, I’m only a recent sub but ya seem too seminal to supplant at your organic prose core....