Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI vs. Professional Authors Results

mark---lawrence.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#71

Post by godelski »

waltbosz wrote: post #48

There is an Asimov story called "Someday" in which a toy computer called a Bard generates random fairy tales and reads them to children. In the story two children try to hack their Bard, to make it tell more interesting modern stories, by feeding it a new vocabulary of modern words. In the end, it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I really feel like that story embodies t…

  > it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned.
I think you're leaving out the best part! I don't want to spoil it, it's a short story. Classic trope, but still. Story here[0]

On another note, as an avid SciFi lover I have always found it interesting that in books, movies, and shows there have been many machines that talk and do complex tasks yet no one ever thought they were alive. Just take Star Trek. The simulations in the Holodeck are highly realistic and intended to mimic real humans. Or even the computer is able to speak and write code as requested. Far more advanced than our systems today. There's even that famous episode in TNG with Data where they are questioning if he is actually alive or not. Not such an easy thing but yet every viewer probably thought he was and recognized the difference between him and the computer and Holodeck[1]. Though my favorite version of that question is in Asimov's The Positronic Man (basis of the movie Bicentennial Man and yes, Asimov is why Data has a Positronic brain). These are fiction, but I find this so interesting. I feel like our LLMs look much more like the computer from Star Trek than the Holograms let alone Data. Yet, I think there's a lot of disagreement about the level of intelligence of these systems and it makes me wonder why someone would say the computer in Star Trek isn't intelligent but the LLM is (I'm sure there's retconning too).

[0] https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/sffaudio-usa/mp3s/Someda...

[1] Well there is Voyager. And that episode from TNG. But go read [0] ;)

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#72

Post by unignorant »

breuleux wrote: post #65
unignorant wrote: post #53

Here are my notes and guesses on the stories in case people here find it interesting. Like some others in the blog post comments I got 6/8 right: 1.) probably human, low on style but a solid twist (CORRECT) 2.) interesting imagery but some continuity issues, maybe AI (INCORRECT) 3.) more a scene than a story, highly confident is AI given style (CORRECT) 4.) style could go either way, maybe human given some successful…

The only one I was fairly sure was human was #6, and that was the only one I kinda enjoyed. In any case, as someone who reads a good deal, I agree. I didn't think any of the stories was particularly great (not enough to bother ranking them, beyond favourite) so I don't care all that much about the result. > AI can do much better than what is posted above for flash if given more sophisticated prompting. How sophistica…

In another reply I gave an example of something you can do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44937774

I enjoy writing so a system like this would never replace that for me. But for someone who doesn't enjoy writing (or maybe can't generate work that meets their bar in the Ira Glass sense of taste) I think this kind of setup works okay for generating flash even with today's models.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#73

Post by entropyneur »

xenotux wrote: post #12

I think this is similar to AI generated images: it puts a new creative tool in the hands of people who might have had good ideas, but didn't have a mastery of the medium. In that respect, it's cool: if you had a great idea for a sci-fi story but no talent for writing, and if an LLM let you realize your vision, that's neat. It has some negative externalities for the craftsmen, but overall, more creativity is hardly a…

Wondering if anyone had success with this yet. I have several ideas for poetry and prose that I don't have the skill to pull off. I periodically plug them into new models and so far all the results have been completely unsatisfactory.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#74

Post by godelski »

thenoblesunfish wrote: post #62
waltbosz wrote: post #48

There is an Asimov story called "Someday" in which a toy computer called a Bard generates random fairy tales and reads them to children. In the story two children try to hack their Bard, to make it tell more interesting modern stories, by feeding it a new vocabulary of modern words. In the end, it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I really feel like that story embodies t…

Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called that?

I don't know if anyone has officially said so but there was a public statement about it being chosen as a reference to story telling (Celtic language). So could be for similar reasons or could be a reference. Not surprising considering how famous the story is and how famous Asimov is. But maybe someone else knows more definitively.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#75

Post by andrewflnr »

bsder wrote: post #20

Perhaps what this is pointing out is that a lot of writers of the genre of "fantasy" produce mostly formulaic, trope-laden piles of crap that AI is pretty good at mimicking? This is neither new nor news. "The Well-Tempered Plot Device" is almost 4 decades old (see: https://news.ansible.uk/plotdev.html ). It does suggest that publishers might want to screen new writing with a quick "Did AI write this?" and only publis…

> "The Well-Tempered Plot Device" is almost 4 decades old

Yeah, we've moved forward a ways in the last 4 decades, or the top of the market has, at least. That was a fun read, though.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#76

Post by famouswaffles »

godelski wrote: post #71
waltbosz wrote: post #48

There is an Asimov story called "Someday" in which a toy computer called a Bard generates random fairy tales and reads them to children. In the story two children try to hack their Bard, to make it tell more interesting modern stories, by feeding it a new vocabulary of modern words. In the end, it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I really feel like that story embodies t…

> it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I think you're leaving out the best part! I don't want to spoil it, it's a short story. Classic trope, but still. Story here[0] On another note, as an avid SciFi lover I have always found it interesting that in books, movies, and shows there have been many machines that talk and do complex tasks yet no one ever thought they were ali…

Because it's fiction and the Author is God.

In Star Trek, the computer is framed as an appliance. It's the ship's operating system. The characters treat it like a highly advanced Alexa. They issue commands ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot"), ask for information, and expect a transactional response. No one ever asks the computer, "How are you feeling today?" because the narrative has established it doesn't have feelings. It's a tool, and we, the audience, accept this premise.

In contrast, the entire point of Data's character is to question the line between machine and person. The episode you mentioned is a courtroom drama specifically designed to force the characters (and the audience) to see him as a sentient being with rights. His "positronic brain" is the magical Asimovian hand-waving that signals to the audience: "This one is different. Pay attention."

'The Author' could have easily positioned the computer or the holodeck in a similar manner and people would agree it was sentient. Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given.

It's one thing to read a fictional story about a fictional technology and assume the position and framing the God is pushing you to, it's another thing entirely to have the technology in your hands and play around with it.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#77

Post by andrewflnr »

vunderba wrote: post #21

The story plot was "Meeting a dragon". As both a human and a writer, challenge accepted: Long ago, there lived a golden dragon whose fractal-like scales gleamed in the glow of the morning in her cave. She was known for her kindness, and many came not with sword or spear, but with humble requests - for you see, it was widely believed that the mystical scales of a dragon would heal illness, cure ailments, and provide f…

For me, the part about "fractal-like scales" would have flagged the author as either an AI or just kind of a pretentious dummy, because that makes very little sense. "Then thus" would actually lean me toward human, because LLMs are usually better at grammar than that. :D

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#78

Post by andrewflnr »

godelski wrote: post #74
thenoblesunfish wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called that?

I don't know if anyone has officially said so but there was a public statement about it being chosen as a reference to story telling (Celtic language). So could be for similar reasons or could be a reference. Not surprising considering how famous the story is and how famous Asimov is. But maybe someone else knows more definitively.

Celtic? The name "Gemini" is much, much, much better known from Greek myth, if it occurs in Celtic culture at all...

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#79

Post by bubblyworld »

keiferski wrote: post #56

I think if you compared the AI stories to works by “top” authors, the results wouldn’t really be as close. No one is confusing a story by Kafka or Conrad with a ChatGPT one. Because unfortunately, one reason why readers can’t tell the difference between the AI and human authors is because they don’t have much exposure to the greats. The average person reads something like 2 books a year, and they probably aren't read…

That's probably true, but as the author points out, it's still interesting to see where the boundary is at the moment. It's a lot further along than people typically argue imo.

Re: AI vs. Professional Authors Results

#80

Post by strken »

andrewflnr wrote: post #78
godelski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if anyone has officially said so but there was a public statement about it being chosen as a reference to story telling (Celtic language). So could be for similar reasons or could be a reference. Not surprising considering how famous the story is and how famous Asimov is. But maybe someone else knows more definitively.

Celtic? The name "Gemini" is much, much, much better known from Greek myth, if it occurs in Celtic culture at all...

Gemini was originally called Bard. That's what thenoblesunfish was asking about: the original name, not the new one.
Post reply on HN