by Audrey Driscoll
As an experiment, I wrote a short story I called “The Green Flash” and then presented its basic elements to ChatGPT and asked it to produce a short story incorporating them. You can read the results in this post on my personal blog.
It took the AI a few seconds to produce its 755-word story. It took me the equivalent of 2.5 standard working days, spread over several weeks.
I did not refine the ChatGPT story in any way. But I reduced mine by a third to make it more comparable to the AI version.
I have to admit, the AI’s version of the story, which it titled “Run for Janey,” isn’t bad. It has an arc, it hangs together, it’s even mildly exciting and ends with an “aww” moment. Many would say it’s a perfectly good story.
A few observations:
- My prompt didn’t say it was the couple’s 50th anniversary. ChatGPT added that detail independently.
- I did not specify that either of the photographers took photos of anyone, but I guess ChatGPT knows about Chekhov’s gun.
- ChatGPT seems to have a positive, sentimental outlook, as well as a sense of humour.
- ChatGPT doesn’t always show rather than tell, and it doesn’t mind using adverbs or stock phrases (i.e., clichés).
- The green flash is more dramatic in the AI version.
Based on this rather superficial test, I conclude that AI may be a useful tool for fiction writers, especially those under pressure to produce text quickly. It would probably be a good idea for those writers to work on creating effective prompts and refining their inputs.
Have I done that? No. Do I intend to? I’m not sure. I have admitted that crossing the gap from story idea to a first draft is my toughest writing challenge. It’s obvious that AI can do that easily, but I don’t know how much effort would be needed on my part to revise prompts and repeat the AI’s text generating routines before the results would match my intentions for a specific story. It could be I’d rather stick to using my aging brain.
Take the story in my “experiment.” I think “The Green Flash,” written 100% by me, is a better short story than “Run for Janey” by ChatGPT. If I had started by prompting the AI and working with the resulting text, I don’t know what sort of story I would have ended up writing, or how much time and effort would have been required to produce something I thought worthwhile.
Logically, the next experiment would be to prompt an AI with elements from one of the many story ideas in my notebook, and see if I could turn the results into a real story more efficiently than my current process.
The real question is which method of producing written fiction is more congenial and effective for any individual writer. Some may have no interest in engaging with AI; others may be motivated to try different AIs and learn how to use them effectively.
In the latter case, should the human writer credit whatever AI they use as a co-writer? Or is the AI analogous to all the mental inputs a writer has had over their lifetime, from everything they’ve ever experienced, read, and learned, all the movies they’ve watched, all the conversations overheard. Because really, our minds are repositories of all this stuff, and it’s from these wells we draw the ideas for stories and the words in which we embody them. It could be argued that AIs do the same, only more efficiently.
Writers, what do you think of artificial intelligence as a fiction writing tool? What sorts of writing projects have you used it for?
Feature image photo by Audrey Driscoll enhanced with Canva.
Writers Supporting Writers 
I have not used it. Since it is unreliable for research, I am not sure how much it can be used (this, notwhistanding the ethical problems raised by many people)…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Definitely not reliable for historical fiction. I think writers will figure out whether or how they will use it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The AI horizon moves quickly. Versions of AIs can be tasked with vetting their own facts. You can ask them to cite every reference and assumption they make.
Public ChatGPT (3.5) unfortunately, is now one of the less featured AIs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would suggest that ChatGPT is only as good as the material supplied, or am I just being stubborn, sticking to normal values?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think there is an art–no, better say technique– to prompting and refining prompts. So should we learn that, or just keep doing the writing with our unaided brains?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can’t help thinking it amounts to cheating, but I should imagine a lot of people will be using it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s why writers who use AI should say so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm…
LikeLike
I absolutely think authors should credit AI when using it. It warns readers who may not want to buy the book to start with, and it helps trad publishers properly pay authors who put in 1000 hours vs those who put in 200 hours for a book.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I agree, Vera.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good points, Vera. Sort of like notices on genetically modified produce for those who would rather avoid it. And the payment difference is a good one too. If some publishers would rather use bots rather than deal with and reimburse human authors, readers should know about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I live for the writing process, every messy, frustrating, tedious, glorious bit of it. I’m not about to give that away to a machine. Moreover, the “good stuff” for any story resides in my subconscious, and I can only access it through drafting and revising.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s true, Liz. I had that idea that the data AIs draw upon is analogous to what the human brain has absorbed through a lifetime, but it’s true that no one understands exactly how our minds work, and a lot does bubble up from the subconscious when we’re in the throes of creation. In fact, that state is one of the best experiences!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with Liz! AI is something interesting to experiment with, but I hope I never take it any further than that. In fact, I’ve done my experiments and don’t think I’ll do anything more with it.
But any writer who uses AI and doesn’t acknowledge that in the finished piece is not a writer I’m going to read. In fact, I don’t think I want to read any writer who uses AI, acknowledged or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hope publishers label AI-produced books, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some create fake authors complete with photos and bios. Reclusive authors who never do book-signings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had not thought of using it, though there is no harm in just imagining what it would be like without giving ‘A1creepybrain’, or whatever it’s called, access to your mind! It would be interesting to insert a story idea that’s popped into your head at bedtime and wake up to a new story…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cool idea. “AlexaGPT, write me a story about a dragon that’s afraid to fly, but loves to swim.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly! But it feels like outsourcing your brain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that would be creepy, Janet! If there’s ever a brain implant for writers so they can dump their ideas directly into a writing bot, I hope I’m not tempted. But it does have a certain allure…
LikeLike
Well done, Audrey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike
Good analysis of observations Audrey.
There would seem to be advantages and shortfalls of AI in writing. Maybe we are seeing a divergence, in that there will be writers who will stick to trusting to their own creativity and typing skills, whereas there will be those who will endeavour to work with this opportunity as a partner or tool (their choice).
I could see how taking the latter might open up creativity in that a writer could have an AI doing the ‘spade work’ instead of agonising for ‘those words or passages’ needed to link up others parts the writer is happy with. It could be a boon for breaking through a writer’s block too.
Being essentially crusty when it comes to anyone or anything interrupting (they would say ‘helping’) me, I will probably stick with the old methods….
(Anyway having to negotiate between my Characters and an AI, gives me a queasy feeling)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, Roger–if an AI could do the “spade work” (a gardening metaphor!) of putting ideas into prose, that could be helpful. I think it would require prompting skills and patience on the part of the writer to make sure the resulting prose had the desired timbre. Certainly the AIs will become more competent, but perhaps also there will be a steeper learning curve to use them effectively.
Ultimately, maybe there will be AI creations and human creations on divergent paths. Who knows?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve struck the right chord there Audrey on the requirements of prompting skills and patience. A matter of training the AI. In this a writer tuned into the concepts would find a partnership with AI useful.
And then we move into the area much beloved on some sf writers when complete AI authorship becomes. Naturally purveyors of mass produced ‘junk’ of the worst sorts would benefit (no royalties or wages to pay to authors!). But what happens on that day when the latest masterwork lauded by all critics is found to be authored by AI?
(The next step being Critics would be replaced by AI analyticals – Super Grammarly)
An area rich with possibilities of all sorts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a likely scenario, Roger. AI literary critics. A science fiction comedy, perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robert Sheckley or Harry Harrison’s ghosts may yet arise and start working on such a story. The theme would suit them each perfectly😃
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Audrey, I have not tried AI for writing and I don’t think I ever will. I do not wish to read stories where AI is used as a tool by the writer. I read a lot of classics and those are safe. If blogging friends start using AI, I won’t read their books. I am not supporting the use of AI in the arts..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those are certainly valid convictions, Robbie. I’m not really tempted by AI but I suspect some writers may find its speed irresistible. Consider those with multi-book contracts with a Big 5 publisher. I do think it’s the right thing to be up front if anything one writes was created by an AI, so those who choose not to read such things won’t be deceived.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. I also know that people who write to publisher specs will probably use this tool. I rarely read modern traditionally published books as the formulas are predictable and boring to me. I read thousands of books over my life so it takes a lot to surprise me now.
LikeLike