| ▲ | TuringTux 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
According to the author, the illustrations are human-made: https://acesounderglass.com/2026/09/25/frog-and-toad-and-the... The author discloses the story started as a prompt to Claude, but has been rewritten. She shares the conversation: https://claude.ai/share/52385381-9df2-4b39-a127-f583d862dc0c I think the actual published prose is considerably different from the initial result of Claude. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | grey-area 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think it is heavily edited too because it reads more as human than AI, LLMs are not capable of this coherence though they are good at trite just so stories like this, but if it was generated first why not credit that? But Claude and the original author helped, so why no credit? The little anthropomorphised machines would be sad, and I imagine the original author would be too. Frog and toad eating cookies is lifted wholesale from the book. I like how Claude only used the OpenAI account (completely reliable!), and confidently claims ‘the story stays faithful to what actually happened.’ We don’t know the full story, and certainly aren’t going to get it from a press release or a strange analogy involving frog and toad and machines having discussions, emotions etc that we have little evidence for (and most of it from the company involved!). The ‘discussions’ are plucked from chain of thought, which is itself generated after the fact. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||