If We’re Intelligent, Why Be Artificial?

It’s high time, my friends, to dip a digit into the domain of artificial intelligence (AI).

A research company in San Francisco called OpenAI, created a chatbot named ChatGPT. They claimed it could enhance a novelist’s creativity and it did this as it had ‘a system that can solve human-level problems.’ Uninspiring as this quote is, it does give a sense of what’s to come. Let’s explore this in real-time.

I signed up and signed in. I anticipated ChatGPT would be like a co-writer sitting opposite me who I could bounce ideas off. A nice silent co-writer who I didn’t have to share ownership and creative control of my work with. A co-writer who didn’t nip out to vape or disappear to Starbucks. One who had no problem with me sneaking off to a drop-in yoga class. One I could switch off at the end of the day and who didn’t care about deadlines.

A cursor blinked on the screen challenging me to ask it anything. An idea emerged: a test! AI is based on statistics. Let’s measure it using statistics.

A compliment I received from a boyfriend about my first novel was that he’d like to see the house my protagonist lived in. Yes, he was my boyfriend, so he had to be nice, but I believe his sincerity as he wasn’t prone to compliments. I was particularly proud of this fictional house and the fact he thought it real, so I thought I’d ask ChatGPT if it could improve the description. Here’s my version:

Tytti felt safe in the old house: its sounds, the creaks and groans, made her feel connected to her ancestors, who would have heard the same.  Nobody knew exactly when the house was built.  It had come Tytti’s way when her late grandmother had willed it to her.  Made of logs that had been left unpainted and had now weathered to a soft silvery grey, it had a twisted pitched roof (now safe from leaks, thanks to her grandad’s repairs) and leaded panes of glass in its four small windows.  It was long, low and perfectly symmetrical in a crooked kind of way.  There was a room for living to the left and a pantry and sauna to the right – half and half.  But being such an old house, it was always cold.

And ChatGPT’s version:

Wrapped in the comforting embrace of the timeworn residence, Tytti found solace within its weathered walls. The ancient structure, with its creaks and groans, served as a living testament to the passage of time, linking her to the whispers of her forebears who had once inhabited the same spaces. The origin of the house remained a mystery, lost in the annals of history, but it had become Tytti's sanctuary after her grandmother's bequest. Constructed from unpainted logs that had gracefully weathered into a gentle silvery hue, the dwelling bore witness to the meticulous repairs of Tytti's grandfather, ensuring its endurance against the elements. The dwelling's character unfolded in the form of a twisted pitched roof, now steadfast against leaks, and leaded panes of glass in its four modest windows. Despite its unconventional symmetry, the long, low structure exuded a timeless charm, divided between a living space on the left and a pantry and sauna on the right, a harmonious blend of antiquity and functionality. Yet, the perpetual chill in the air attested to the age of the house, a testament to the enduring connection between Tytti and the ancestral echoes within its walls.

And I am honoured to have become Henry James.

The statistics test I used – the Flesch-Kincaid readability test – told me that ChatGPT had added 60 words and taken out all of my 28.5% passive sentences. It had also increased my readability level from 6.3 (secondary or middle school), which is for a reader of books like Harry Potter to 14.4 (university or college level), which is for a reader of books like The Alchemist.

Flesch-Kincaid is used by Word and myself, but there is another test: the Dale-Chall readability formula. I used this to double-check my Flesch-Kincaid results. In this case, the higher the number, the easier the read. My text scored 41, which is again equivalent to secondary/middle school, while ChatGPT scored 16, again equivalent to university/college.

You don’t need to have been to university/college to be able to read my books. They are an easy read. Why is this important? The general public prefer to read at a 13- to 14-year-old level which is also a secondary/middle school level. This doesn’t mean the general public are a bunch of dolts reading well below their learning. It just conveys how much energy a reader will need to expend to be able to absorb a book without challenge. In other words: for fun. While lying on a beach; the daily commute; for relaxation; escapism. So 1 point to me, 0 to AI. If I’d changed my text, I would have been writing way over my readerships’ heads. And where had my voice gone? I believe readers read for a writer’s voice which, as my test proves (I’m no clone of Henry James), AI obliterated.

ChatGPT also promises to be a ‘brainstorming partner’ for novelists (let’s label them ‘manovelists’ as in no AI used). As a manovelist, but a curious one, I did go further down the yellow brick road and try some brainstorming. Question; answer; question; answer – the cursor blinked never endingly. My brain drained. I became as numb as a lab rat snorting

Class AI narcotics.

I found it impossible to switch between brainstorming (creative) and questioning (logical). A controversial comparison to some, but for a manovelist like myself, questioning is self-editing, and creativity and self-editing do not go together. You have to go full throttle with the brainstorming and not censor yourself. That’s the reason manovelists do different tasks at different times. For example, a manovelist will use logic to check grammar and mechanics. I think this is where AI falls down and is of no use to novelists. Having Word read my work back to me is as much output as I want from any computer programme. And AI is just that: another computer programme.

The solitary excitement of writing a novel is, like many other things, best done alone. There’s the fun of mining your mind for the perfect word. Digging deep for diamonds. Swilling ideas like hot beverages around in your brain. Where will all these things go if you use AI? Down the drain?

Conclusion: There is art in AI, but it is artifice. YOU are the artist. Your words are precious and your own. Never forget this.