This is where things go to die. People won’t <i>succeed</i> with this shit, but it will clog up previously useful channels and they will be shut down. Like email has mostly devolved to “communicate with those I already communicate with”.
See <a href="http://neil-clarke.com/a-concerning-trend/" rel="nofollow">http://neil-clarke.com/a-concerning-trend/</a> for some more details from the editor of Clarkesworld.
So is the idea here that the submitters figure they have a miniscule chance of sneaking through, but it costs them basically nothing to generate, and if by some miracle they win, they get a payout that's a significant amount of money in some parts of the world?<p>Or is it like wanna-be writers who can't tell the difference between ChatGPT output and really good writing, and figure that if they can just put their brilliant idea for a story into a prompt and have ChatGPT clean it up, their talent will finally be recognized?
Neil Clarke said about "I worry that this path will lead to an increased number of barriers for new and international authors". So, brainstorming potential solutions, where the goal isn't "to stop AI content writers" as much as ensure that writers are have "to do the actual work".<p>What does proof-of-work look like for fiction? Uploading drafts, ensuring "adequate" time between them and "adequate" revisions? What else would work?
I'm surprised.<p>For my own entertainment, I've tried to have ChatGPT write a science fiction story a few times, but its stories weren't entertaining.<p>The main problem is that it sounds like it is summarizing. For example, here is a typical start to one of its stories:<p>"
In a world much like our own, a team of scientists were working on an experimental device known as the Gravitational Wave Interferometer. They had been working on the project for years, but had been unable to make it work. The device was designed to detect the subtle ripples in space-time caused by gravitational waves, but it required an incredible amount of precision and sensitivity."<p>That's fine, but it sounds like the summary of a story rather than the story itself. It's telling rather than showing. For comparison here is the intro from the popular book The Hunt for Red October:<p>"Captain First Rank Marko Ramius of the Soviet Navy was dressed for the Arctic conditions normal to the Northern Fleet submarine base at Polyamyy. Five layers of wool and oilskin enclosed him. A dirty harbor tug pushed his submarine’s bow around to the north, facing down the channel. The dock that had held his Red October for two interminable months was now a water-filled concrete box, one of the many specially built to shelter strategic missile submarines from the harsh elements. On its edge a collection of sailors and dockyard workers watched his ship sail in stolid Russian fashion, without a wave or a cheer."<p>This sets the stage in a more interesting way than ChatGPT does.<p>What kinds of prompt strategies can I use to make ChatGPT's stories sound more like storytelling and less like a synopsis or summary? Can someone share a specific prompt?
Anecdote: I asked ChatGPT whether it created a ChatGPT created poem (not generated by me) and it answered yes. I asked it about one it didn't create and it answered no. I repeated this several times and it was accurate in all those cases. Of course, it may give the wrong answer any time.<p>The best solution will be for ChatGPT to have a way to verify that certain creations are not generated. Just like identifying duplicate content using tools like Copyscape. Of course, there are issues like user privacy which will need to be taken into consideration, but that seems to be the only fool-proof way.
Hey, it's "Clarkesworld". As in "Neil Clarke", or even "Arthur C. Clarke", with an "e" at the end.<p>Clarksworld is probably where you find discussions about the latest forklift model :P
It's kind of like Bitcoin: huge amount of money and reputation sitting out there to be claimed once your algo is good enough to publish a story in a major market. Similar to beating humans at chess. As a fiction author this does scare me. I don't see why the ai won't get as good or better than us.
All artificial "intelligence" is just a glorified database crawler. Because you think it means something shows how far you have strayed. Pure inference according to everything that has already been done. The definition of the past. You will trick yourselves into thinking that a robot can instantly assess all lies and truth professed by all languages committed to the universal knowledge repository. You are impressed by the automation of curiosity.<p>Now you do not have to pay attention to anything. This is utopia. It was a waste of time for my father to tell me to work hard.