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

Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#31

Post by dools »

The Weeping Willows of Winnipeg is a shit story, but if you were working on a short story, and you got 5 suggested rewrites for a given paragraph, or you were looking for ideas for a plot point or something similar, then you could use ChatGPT to help you out.

In exactly the same way, sometimes I give ChatGPT a complete coding task and it can't do the job. But while I'm working on code I can get it to do certain things and it saves me a lot of time and sometimes comes up with very useful insights and things I was unaware of.

I'm sure authors (or anyone else whose job maps to "language processing") can use it similarly.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#32

Post by armchairhacker »

I think a while ago I commented something along the lines of "let me know when we see a successful book/article/speech which gets revealed to be largely AI-generated". And that hasn't happened yet: AI-generated content has always been noticeable and generally considered bad ("was X written by ChatGPT?" is an insult).

But I know AI is already being used to assist human writers, not just with boring emails and speeches, but creative works like articles and books.

Moreover, if AI ends up writing something decent, it won't be recognized as AI-written. And the human "author" probably won't be quick to reveal so; due to the controversy surrounding AI, and because then people would over-scrutinize it and just point out mistakes which even a human would make (or really minor opinionated things they call mistakes just to have a point).

Going back though, if AI ever does get to the point where it can replicate human talent, eventually we're going to know. If GPT-5 exists and is able to replicate human-quality writing, it's only a matter of time before someone reveals it, or a competitor catches up and then they reveal it.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#33

Post by CamperBob2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #6
cgio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musicians write for other musicians. Coders use the best data structure to solve a problem not for the users but for another coder to appreciate. You weigh praise on the merits of the judge to do the judgement. People in the end listen to the music musicians listen to, even if this is with a lag. I am not a musician but I appreciate a musician’s depth of understanding for something I superficially let stroke my ears.

> Coders use the best data structure to solve a problem not for the users but for another coder to appreciate. If only. That would make life so much better and easier.

Huh? How does forgetting who you work for lead to better software?

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#34

Post by danenania »

I wonder which model was used for this? Based on the poem taking "10 seconds" to generate, I'd guess the free version of ChatGPT, meaning 3.5 turbo.

While I wouldn't expect Atwood's conclusions to change too much by using GPT-4 instead, I think it's interesting that even the majority of educated people and journalists outside of tech don't seem to realize that the best model is at least 10x smarter than the free version of ChatGPT, which is what they seem to be using for all their prejudice-confirming "experiments".

They also always seem to assume that if the output from whatever prompt they came up with can't reach X quality bar, that means it can't be reached by anyone else either with a different prompting strategy.

Not trying to throw any shade toward Ms. Atwood, who is one of my favorite writers, and I'm also not claiming AI will be writing as well as her anytime soon... just pointing out that if we want to really measure where we're at on tasks like this one, a more rigorous approach is needed.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#35

Post by jacquesm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coders use the best data structure to solve a problem not for the users but for another coder to appreciate. If only. That would make life so much better and easier.

Huh? How does forgetting who you work for lead to better software?

Wrong thread?

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#36

Post by CamperBob2 »

bglazer wrote: post #16
galkk wrote: post #3

That criticism reminds me articles/videos where professional musicians critise some famous hit songs. Musicians sometimes can comment that guitar is ahead of drums or vocal doesn't hit notes quite well. The things that I as not musician doesn't hear at all. And this is also common topic in their reviews, that one should write music for audience, not for other musicians. I'm not native speaker and many weirdnesses of…

Even if there weren’t stylistic and logical problems with the story, I don’t think I’d be terribly interested in reading it. Fundamentally, literature is about communication with other people, living in another person’s mental world or understanding their unique perspective. It’s not really clear to me what human value an LLM generated story has. It’s a statistically probable sequence of tokens generated from the dis…

What do I learn from that?

That you are nothing special. The computer is just doing what you do, putting one word after the last one. Picking each word more or less carefully, based on its own training and the audience's expectations.

It's doing it badly, for the moment. But would we mock a talking dog who stutters?

How is my life enriched?

Being able to see what's coming is helpful, more often than not.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#37

Post by CamperBob2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? How does forgetting who you work for lead to better software?

Wrong thread?

Coders use the best data structure to solve a problem not for the users but for another coder to appreciate.

I find that sentiment mildly offensive. I write a lot of code myself, but for every program I write, I use a hundred programs written by other people. If those programmers want to impress me, they will keep my needs as a user in mind, not their own egos.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#38

Post by muglug »

danenania wrote: post #34

I wonder which model was used for this? Based on the poem taking "10 seconds" to generate, I'd guess the free version of ChatGPT, meaning 3.5 turbo. While I wouldn't expect Atwood's conclusions to change too much by using GPT-4 instead, I think it's interesting that even the majority of educated people and journalists outside of tech don't seem to realize that the best model is at least 10x smarter than the free vers…

> the best model is at least 10x smarter than the free version of ChatGPT

Citation needed. What does 10x smarter mean here? There’s an ongoing debate about whether the word “smart” even applies to a text prediction engine.

Re: Margaret Atwood Reviews a Margaret Atwood Story by AI

#39

Post by jprete »

garba_dlm wrote: post #18
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes When I have a conversation with GPT4, it keeps the history, and the entire history is a prompt for the next prompt. I would say, not totally unlike a human memory. just GPT4 is limited to 8000 characters or something. Humans have a bit more, but with added 'forgetfulness', so who knows how many characters for real. Humans don't actually recall perfect text very well.

I think that human memory "keeps" the next prompt by baking it into the parameters of the "neural net" (the brain) immediately this is has gotta be somehow an analogue of dreams andor sleep andor AI hallucinations. I think this because for many of us, to not sleep triggers hallucinations, which is the conscious experience of whatever the organic version of 'backpropagation' (training the model?) really is.

This is rather pseudoscientific.
Post reply on HN