BOOKS

To promote understanding, I suggest reading a post titled American vs. East Asian Storytelling from T.K. Marnell's blog, Reading, 'Ritings, and Ramblings dated December 17, 2015.  The link is: https://blog.tkmarnell.com/east-asian-storytelling/ and I offer the following excerpt from it as a summary of a "problem" I have: It seems that my stories are too Western for Eastern tastes, and too Eastern for Western tastes. Marnell writes (emphasis is hers):

I think this illustrates the essential difference between our cultures: Western cultures are individualist and idealize victory. East Asian cultures are collectivist and idealize harmony.

American stories are typically about righteous heroes defeating sadistic psychopaths. We make movies about Superman vs. Lex Luther, Indiana Jones vs. the Nazis, Clarice Starling vs. Buffalo Bill. We don't like moral gray areas. Even in Star Wars, when characters give lip service to the "balance of the Force," we really expect the Jedi to kill the Sith and then everyone can live happily ever after.

In contrast, the villains in East Asian fiction tend to be essentially good people who make misguided choices, and they reform their ways after the heroes make heartfelt speeches about the importance of friendship. In Mobile Suit Gundam Wing (1995), the villains are a group dedicated to ending war forever and uniting everyone in peace. In Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke (1997), there are no villains. Princess Mononoke is about resolving the conflict between man and nature, not about how one is good and the other is bad.

Get ready. AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) lurks, gathering strength to become the next big thing.

        My slightly futuristic books deal with AI and the many real, worrying, subtle interactions and problems between humans and our familiar AI systems, but AI is almost a red herring now. Beyond it we see the coming wave of AGI software systems such as those that populate my (and most) Sci-Fi writing. 

        My stories do have fun with the irony and oddness of the machine-human culture clash, and today, in our slightly less modern real world, AI does make important contributions in various areas. But...

As a writer, I will never use AI tools in my creative writing because that fact should be acknowledged, and the "system's" name would have to be listed as a co-author. Inevitably, the company who owns the system would insist on payment as well, and to think otherwise is naïve.

        I gladly use AI for copy editing and for finding sources for me to read, but I'll never use AI to help analyze research, because any text it produces would be subject to the additional biases of another "mind", and to say that it would have no bias is foolish. Its programmers can tweak it in any direction they want, and they're doing it now. Soon the next generation (AGI) will be able to tweak itself. This is what my stories are about.

        And I will never read or continue to read a human author who uses AI but does not give it full credit. However, I'll consider reading a book conceived and written entirely by an AI system as long as I like the story. In either case, the most interesting question will be: Who gets the author's money?

For centuries, authors have been helped by many coaches and exemplars. The diversity shows. But from now on, the work of authors who use the same few AI tools for writing and research will seem vaguely similar. If authors attempt to fix this by instructing their AI co-author (or editor) to produce "in the style of" anyone, the co-authorship is even clearer and the results may even be enjoyably laughable. ChatGPT is not Hemingway or P.D. James or anyone else. It is a set of algorithms with a faked morality and no feelings.

        "Silly" may be what many readers want, but it seems silly to get help or data about human life from an amoral inhuman AI system which learns more than its co-author does. For those who insist that humans learn more, remember that humans often get lazy but a machine never does (unless it gets tweaked to fake being lazy, or learns to tweak itself, in order to fool us).

Lewis Jenkins, 2023.09.18