11–20 of 82 posts
stories below. they were generated with chatgpt 4.0. pair 1: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/yjahv pair 2: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/sjph3 pair 3: https://osf.io/d8f6m/files/4pfw3
https://www.villanova.edu/university/ai.html
"Villanova embraces Artificial Intelligence (AI) with a commitment to thoughtful, ethical use rooted in our Augustinian Catholic mission and values. We aim to balance innovation with our humanist tradition and intellectual heritage, preparing students to lead responsibly in a changing world.
Explore resources designed to help you learn, teach and work with AI at Villanova."
Very bleak. I think like most people, I would prefer for stories not to be written by AI. I value human creativity, and believe that an LLM cannot truly produce art. This article suggests that when people are lied to that stories were not written by AI (when they actually were), they prefer them.
Denial seems to be the general human default, it's easy and free, but at best it can only delay the inevitable.
Accept and adapt is probably the most logical approach, but that requires a lot of effort and risk taking, and still will likely leave you net worse off.
I suppose hostility and violence is another human favorite, but that almost never has gone over well.
Reading stories written by humans is one of the ways we can keep ourselves grounded to other humans: be it through fantasy, lyrics, or autobiographies. I can only describe reading AI stories as emotional indulgence.
But we are tired of many stories. We see "new" movies until we are around 20 - then the repetition sets in- we get a refined taste and long for the exotic (-30) until finally, we search for outliers, for anything new, desperate under the sun.
AI can not provide that. But also humans can not provide that. Every bard, every writer, every poet, every band rises every morning to compete against the beatles. Most of them loose and thus abandon the craft to win bread elsewhere.
It should be noted that these stories were 1000 word stories, with each one taking 5 minutes to read on average.
A huge limitation of the study IMO.
Most people who read are not reading 1000 word short stories. If they could replicate this story using novella length stories (25-40k words), I'd be curious to see the results. I would wager that a much larger % of people would prefer long form content from humans.
Very bleak. I think like most people, I would prefer for stories not to be written by AI. I value human creativity, and believe that an LLM cannot truly produce art. This article suggests that when people are lied to that stories were not written by AI (when they actually were), they prefer them.
It does - but does this not potentially suggest that an LLM can produce "art"?