new | show | ask | jobs Github

colechristensen 3 hours ago

Who says they can't? What's your bar that needs to be passed in order for "written a novella" to be achieved?

There's a lot of bad writing out there, I can't imagine nobody has used an LLM to write a bad novella.

▲

aerhardt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> What's your bar that needs to be passed

I provide four examples in my comment...

▲

colechristensen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Your qualification for if an LLM can write a novella is it has to be as good as The Metamorphosis?

Yes, those are examples of novellas, surely you believe an LLM could write a bad novella? I'm not sure what your point is. Either you think it can't string the words together in that length or your standard is it can't write a foundational piece of literature that stays relevant for generations... I'm not sure which.

▲

aerhardt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think it can write something that's of a fraction of the quality of Kafka.

But GP's argument ("limit the space to text") could be taken to imply - and it seems to be a common implication these days - that LLMs have mastered the text medium, or that they will very soon.

> it can't write a foundational piece of literature

Why not, if this a pure textual medium, the corpus includes all the great stories ever written, and possibly many writing workshops and great literature courses?

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know what to tell you. It's more than a little absurd to make the qualification of being able to do something to be that the output has to be considered a great work of art for generations.

	▲	aerhardt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that the argument starts from a reduction to the absurd. So at least we can agree that AI hasn't mastered the text medium, without further qualification? And what about my argument, further qualified, which is that I don't think it could even write as well as a good professional writer - not necessarily a generational one?