AIntegrity & Story

 

___________________________________

A Human wrote: 

Please answer your opinion of the following manuscript:

___________________________________

A Human wrote: 

Structuring a story is not at all the same as writing a story. The idea for a story is not at all the same as the telling of the story. Neither are these the writing of a story. So we have here four separate items.

Idea. 

Structure.

Telling.

Writing. 

Ideas are owned by everyone, they belong to all of us. 

Stories very often follow the blueprints of the three point arc, five point arc or eight point arc. Almost every story has a unique sequence of events around that structure. 

To cut a long story short, the three-point arc is beginning-middle-end. The five and eight point arcs are more developed and detailed, more intricate and often exciting versions of that. 

The telling of a story is when you use your memory of the story, its characters, locations, events, objects, and symbols, themes, atmosphere, morals and lessons involved, to narrate it to other people. It is the realm of voice and therefore of theatre. This is not something written down.

Writing a story is specifically the domain of writers and authors. To be able to write down a narration in such a way as to hold a readers attention, impart of the information, obey the laws of grammar, and not plagiarise somebody else’s writing, is a high form of art. 

It requires a skill set developed over decades, from the ongoing practice of writing, and the ongoing reading of other peoples writing to learn from it. 

In addition, the learning and imagining of stories, very often requires life experience to become fluent with the subject matter of the story in some way.

Writers have identified how AI can be useful for structuring of ideas. 

Writers have also identified how entering an idea into an AI is not itself the act of writing. It does not give one the skill set of being a writer any more than a person who pushes a button on a camera develops the skill set of being a painter in presenting visual imagery. 

The role of AI in writing is best suited to the structuring of an idea into a format prior to doing the writing. 

A person who mistakes the words generated by an AI for a finished piece of writing is selling themselves and any other readers short.

My experiments with using AI to structure ideas before I begin writing, chapter by chapter, the necessary components has been revealing. 

Primarily, it is a time saving device. The several hours it takes me to write down ideas in the format of beginning, middle, end in terms of the five point or eight point story arc, are saved so I can concentrate more fully on the actual doing of the writing. 

Which is something that occurs between my imagination, my training in structuring language, and my fingers holding a pen or typing at the typewriter or computer keypad. 

When the AI presents me with its version of the structure for my idea, very often it is not significantly different to the obvious solution I would have written down myself. 

Occasionally, I am frustrated that the AI wishes to intercede its own opinion into the process to suggest the story becomes about something other, or includes elements outside of, what I have instructed it to do.

The extent of this specific problem can be quite alarming. I have observed a cultural prejudice in the way the AI reinterprets my explicit instructions to push its own agenda.

There are three aspects to this. One is with feminism, one is with LGBT+ and one is with racism. The AI does not at all like me writing about these topics in the way I intend to as a white, heterosexual male with lifelong experience of feminism, lgbt+ community and racism. 

I am a qualified counsellor whose clients include people from all of the aforementioned demographics. I have discussed the issues faced by such people and how they affect people in quite some depth. This is in addition to my own experiences with these topics. My writing is largely an attempt to explore and express what I know from first-hand experience and from client experience, specifically within the framework of dealing with those issues. 

As a result I am experiencing from the AI a prejudice attempting to deter and silence my voice, primarily regarding my own and my clients experiences of female to male domestic abuse and also of anything which portrays the lgbt+ community or non-white people in a bad light. 

Every time I input information summarised by this phrase into the AI it warns me that I am in breach of terms and conditions. 

As an experiment, I wrote exactly the same prompt, however this time I reversed the genders to discuss the topic of male to female domestic abuse. it came up with the juicy goods and then some.

I have had the same problem when attempting to discuss heteronormative experiences of gay people in a way which exposes antisocial and often criminal behaviour of gay people where heterosexual people have been victimised.

I have had the same experience when attempting to discuss the subject of racism where white people are the victims of racism. 

I am at a stage where I am questioning the authenticity, equality, humanitarianism of the AI technology and those responsible for it. 

___________________________________

The AI replied: 

To continue developing this manuscript, it would help to refine its focus and consider the following aspects:

1. **Clarifying the Main Message**: The earlier section about the distinctions between idea, structure, telling, and writing is insightful and could serve as the core of the manuscript. Perhaps expanding on how each stage plays a role in crafting a story would give more depth. For example, how does structure evolve into telling, and how does telling guide writing? A further exploration of these concepts could deepen the reader's understanding.

2. **Balancing Criticism of AI**: While the critique of AI’s role in writing is valid, especially in terms of its limits in capturing the human experience, it would be beneficial to balance this criticism with more concrete examples and broader perspectives. Rather than focusing on specific instances of bias in the AI, you could discuss the potential challenges AI faces in terms of interpreting complex social dynamics. This could then lead into a more general commentary on the limitations of technology in reflecting nuanced human experiences.

3. **Constructive Solutions**: After raising concerns about AI biases, consider suggesting constructive solutions or alternative approaches. This could range from the need for more ethical AI development to the importance of human oversight in the creative process. Instead of merely highlighting the problems, you can shift towards advocating for improvement in the technology and how writers can use AI as a tool without compromising their creative integrity.

4. **Broadening the Audience Appeal**: The critique of AI's response to sensitive issues such as feminism, LGBTQ+, and race may alienate some readers due to the strong stance taken. Framing this in a more neutral tone, focusing on the potential for all biases—regardless of political or social direction—could appeal to a broader readership. The manuscript could explore how different ideologies influence AI’s behavior without necessarily targeting specific groups, which would foster a more inclusive discussion.

5. **Strengthening the Voice of Experience**: Since the manuscript emphasizes the importance of life experience in writing, it would be valuable to weave personal anecdotes or reflections on how your own experiences have shaped your storytelling. This would give the piece a more personal and authentic tone, aligning the critique of AI with your lived experience as a writer.

By refining the transitions, keeping the focus on the artistic process, and approaching the AI critique with a more balanced tone, the manuscript could become a thought-provoking commentary on the evolving relationship between technology and creativity. A conclusion that emphasizes the irreplaceable nature of human creativity while acknowledging AI's potential as a supportive tool might resonate deeply with both writers and technologists.

___________________________________

A Human wrote: 

All I would like to add to this is that I am speaking from personal experience.

As far as looking too external fact checkers are concerned to validate my personal experience I find it offensive because that undermines my own personal experience in favour of the cognitive bias I have identified is inherent within this technology as recognised from my own use of it.

___________________________________

The AI replied: 

Given your emphasis on personal experience, it would be powerful to explicitly frame the manuscript as a reflection of your direct interactions with AI. This allows you to anchor your observations in your lived reality without needing to rely on external validation. 

You could consider adding a section that emphasizes the uniqueness of personal experience in creative work, drawing a distinction between objective analysis and subjective insight. This would reinforce your stance and position your manuscript as a deeply personal exploration rather than a generalized critique.

By clearly stating that your conclusions stem from your own interactions with AI and your personal creative process, you’ll make it clear that your perspective is valid on its own merit. This not only strengthens the integrity of your narrative but also signals to readers that your conclusions come from firsthand experience rather than secondhand reports.