The Limitations of AI in Creative Writing: Why Human Creativity Still Reigns Supreme
3 Sources
3 Sources
[1]
Why AI can't take over creative writing
In 1948, the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, proposed modelling language in terms of the probability of the next word in a sentence given the previous words. These types of probabilistic language models were largely derided, most famously by linguist Noam Chomsky: "The notion of 'probability of a sentence' is an entirely useless one." In 2022, 74 years after Shannon's proposal, ChatGPT appeared, which caught the attention of the public, with some even suggesting it was a gateway to super-human intelligence. Going from Shannon's proposal to ChatGPT took so long because the amount of data and computing time used was unimaginable even a few years before. ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) learned from a huge corpus of text from the internet. It predicts the probability of the next word given the context: a prompt and the previously generated words. ChatGPT uses this model to generate language by choosing the next word according to the probabilistic prediction. Think about drawing words from a hat, where the words predicted to have a higher probability have more copies in the hat. ChatGPT produces text that seems intelligent. There is a lot of controversy about how these tools can help or hinder learning and practising creative writing. As a professor of computer science who has authored hundreds of works on artificial intelligence (AI), including AI textbooks that cover the social impact of large language models, I think understanding how the models work can help writers and educators consider the limitations and potential uses of AI for what might be called "creative" writing. LLMs as parrots or plagiarists It's important to distinguish between "creativity" by the LLM and creativity by a human. For people who had low expectations of what a computer could generate, it's been easy to assign creativity to the computer. Others were more skeptical. Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter saw "a mind-boggling hollowness hidden just beneath its flashy surface." Linguist Emily Bender and colleagues described the language models as stochastic parrots, meaning they repeat what is in the data they were trained on with randomness. To understand this, consider why a particular word was generated. It's because it has a relatively high probability, and it has a high probability because a lot of text in the training corpus used that word in similar contexts. Selecting a word according to the probability distribution is like selecting text with a similar context and using its next word. Generating text from LLMs can be seen as plagiarism, one word at a time. The creativity of a human Consider the creativity of a human who has ideas they want to convey. With generative AI, they put their ideas into a prompt and the AI will produce text (or images or sounds). If someone doesn't care what is generated, it doesn't really matter what they use as a prompt. But what if they do care about what is generated? An LLM tries to generate what a random person who had written the previous text would produce. Most creative writers do not want what a random person would write. They want to use their creativity, and may want a tool to produce what they would write if they had the time to produce it. LLMs don't typically have a large corpus of what a particular author has written to learn from. The author will undoubtedly want to produce something different. If the output is expected to be more detailed than the input, the LLM has to make up details. These may or may not be what the writer intended. Some positive uses of LLMs for creative writing Writing is like software development: Given an idea of what is wanted, software developers produce code (text in a computer language) analogously to how writers produce text in a natural language. LLMs treat writing code and writing natural language text the same way; the corpus each LLM is trained on contains both natural language and code. What's produced depends on the context. Writers can learn from the experience of software developers. LLMs are good for small projects that have been done previously by many other people, such as database queries or writing standard letters. They are also useful for parts of larger projects, such as a pop-up box in a graphical user interface. If programmers want to use them for bigger projects, they need to be prepared to generate multiple outputs and edit the one that is closest to what is intended. The problem in software development has always been specifying exactly what is wanted; coding is the easy part. Generating good prompts How to generate good prompts has been advocated as an art form called "prompt engineering." Proponents of prompt engineering have suggested multiple techniques that improve the output of current LLMs, such as asking for an outline and then asking for the text based on the original prompt augmented with the outline. Another is to ask the LLM to show its reasoning steps, as in so-called chain of thought. The LLM outputs don't just the answer a question, but explains the steps that could be taken to answer it. The LLM uses those steps as part of its prompt to get its final answer. Such advice is bound to be ephemeral. If some prompt-engineering technique works, it will be incorporated into a future release of the LLM, so that the effect happens without the need for the explicit use of the technique. Recent models that claim to reason have incorporated such step-by-step prompts. People want to believe Computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum, describing his ELIZA program written in 1964-66, said: "I was startled to see how quickly and how very deeply people conversing with (the program) became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it." The tools have changed, but people still want to believe. In this age of misinformation, it is important for everyone to have a way to judge the often self-serving hype. There is no magic in generative AI, but there is lots of data from which to predict what someone could write. I hope that creativity is more than regurgitating what others have written.
[2]
Why AI can't take over creative writing
In 1948, the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, proposed modeling language in terms of the probability of the next word in a sentence given the previous words. These types of probabilistic language models were largely derided, most famously by linguist Noam Chomsky: "The notion of 'probability of a sentence' is an entirely useless one." In 2022, 74 years after Shannon's proposal, ChatGPT appeared, which caught the attention of the public, with some even suggesting it was a gateway to super-human intelligence. Going from Shannon's proposal to ChatGPT took so long because the amount of data and computing time used was unimaginable even a few years before. ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) learned from a huge corpus of text from the internet. It predicts the probability of the next word given the context: a prompt and the previously generated words. ChatGPT uses this model to generate language by choosing the next word according to the probabilistic prediction. Think about drawing words from a hat, where the words predicted to have a higher probability have more copies in the hat. ChatGPT produces text that seems intelligent. There is a lot of controversy about how these tools can help or hinder learning and practicing creative writing. As a professor of computer science who has authored hundreds of works on artificial intelligence (AI), including AI textbooks that cover the social impact of large language models, I think understanding how the models work can help writers and educators consider the limitations and potential uses of AI for what might be called "creative" writing. LLMs as parrots or plagiarists It's important to distinguish between "creativity" by the LLM and creativity by a human. For people who had low expectations of what a computer could generate, it's been easy to assign creativity to the computer. Others were more skeptical. Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter saw "a mind-boggling hollowness hidden just beneath its flashy surface." Linguist Emily Bender and colleagues described the language models as stochastic parrots, meaning they repeat what is in the data they were trained on with randomness. To understand this, consider why a particular word was generated. It's because it has a relatively high probability, and it has a high probability because a lot of text in the training corpus used that word in similar contexts. Selecting a word according to the probability distribution is like selecting text with a similar context and using its next word. Generating text from LLMs can be seen as plagiarism, one word at a time. The creativity of a human Consider the creativity of a human who has ideas they want to convey. With generative AI, they put their ideas into a prompt and the AI will produce text (or images or sounds). If someone doesn't care what is generated, it doesn't really matter what they use as a prompt. But what if they do care about what is generated? An LLM tries to generate what a random person who had written the previous text would produce. Most creative writers do not want what a random person would write. They want to use their creativity, and may want a tool to produce what they would write if they had the time to produce it. LLMs don't typically have a large corpus of what a particular author has written to learn from. The author will undoubtedly want to produce something different. If the output is expected to be more detailed than the input, the LLM has to make up details. These may or may not be what the writer intended. Some positive uses of LLMs for creative writing Writing is like software development: Given an idea of what is wanted, software developers produce code (text in a computer language) analogously to how writers produce text in a natural language. LLMs treat writing code and writing natural language text the same way; the corpus each LLM is trained on contains both natural language and code. What's produced depends on the context. Writers can learn from the experience of software developers. LLMs are good for small projects that have been done previously by many other people, such as database queries or writing standard letters. They are also useful for parts of larger projects, such as a pop-up box in a graphical user interface. If programmers want to use them for bigger projects, they need to be prepared to generate multiple outputs and edit the one that is closest to what is intended. The problem in software development has always been specifying exactly what is wanted; coding is the easy part. Generating good prompts How to generate good prompts has been advocated as an art form called "prompt engineering." Proponents of prompt engineering have suggested multiple techniques that improve the output of current LLMs, such as asking for an outline and then asking for the text based on the original prompt augmented with the outline. Another is to ask the LLM to show its reasoning steps, as in the so-called chain of thought. The LLM outputs don't just answer a question, but explain the steps that could be taken to answer it. The LLM uses those steps as part of its prompt to get its final answer. Such advice is bound to be ephemeral. If some prompt-engineering technique works, it will be incorporated into a future release of the LLM, so that the effect happens without the need for the explicit use of the technique. Recent models that claim to reason have incorporated such step-by-step prompts. People want to believe Computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum, describing his ELIZA program written in 1964-66, said, "I was startled to see how quickly and how very deeply people conversing with (the program) became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it." The tools have changed, but people still want to believe. In this age of misinformation, it is important for everyone to have a way to judge the often self-serving hype. There is no magic in generative AI, but there is lots of data from which to predict what someone could write. I hope that creativity is more than regurgitating what others have written.
[3]
Why AI can't take over creative writing
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) learned from a huge corpus of text from the internet. It predicts the probability of the next word given the context: a prompt and the previously generated words. The AI chatbot uses this model to generate language by choosing the next word according to the probabilistic prediction. Think about drawing words from a hat, where the words predicted to have a higher probability have more copies in the hat. ChatGPT produces text that seems intelligent.In 1948, the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, proposed modelling language in terms of the probability of the next word in a sentence given the previous words. These types of probabilistic language models were largely derided, most famously by linguist Noam Chomsky: "The notion of 'probability of a sentence' is an entirely useless one." In 2022, 74 years after Shannon's proposal, ChatGPT appeared, which caught the attention of the public, with some even suggesting it was a gateway to super-human intelligence. Going from Shannon's proposal to ChatGPT took so long because the amount of data and computing time used was unimaginable even a few years before. ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) learned from a huge corpus of text from the internet. It predicts the probability of the next word given the context: a prompt and the previously generated words. ChatGPT uses this model to generate language by choosing the next word according to the probabilistic prediction. Think about drawing words from a hat, where the words predicted to have a higher probability have more copies in the hat. ChatGPT produces text that seems intelligent. There is a lot of controversy about how these tools can help or hinder learning and practising creative writing. As a professor of computer science who has authored hundreds of works on artificial intelligence (AI), including AI textbooks that cover the social impact of large language models, I think understanding how the models work can help writers and educators consider the limitations and potential uses of AI for what might be called "creative" writing. LLMs as parrots or plagiarists It's important to distinguish between "creativity" by the LLM and creativity by a human. For people who had low expectations of what a computer could generate, it's been easy to assign creativity to the computer. Others were more skeptical. Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter saw "a mind-boggling hollowness hidden just beneath its flashy surface." Linguist Emily Bender and colleagues described the language models as stochastic parrots, meaning they repeat what is in the data they were trained on with randomness. To understand this, consider why a particular word was generated. It's because it has a relatively high probability, and it has a high probability because a lot of text in the training corpus used that word in similar contexts. Selecting a word according to the probability distribution is like selecting text with a similar context and using its next word. Generating text from LLMs can be seen as plagiarism, one word at a time. The creativity of a human Consider the creativity of a human who has ideas they want to convey. With generative AI, they put their ideas into a prompt and the AI will produce text (or images or sounds). If someone doesn't care what is generated, it doesn't really matter what they use as a prompt. But what if they do care about what is generated? An LLM tries to generate what a random person who had written the previous text would produce. Most creative writers do not want what a random person would write. They want to use their creativity, and may want a tool to produce what they would write if they had the time to produce it. LLMs don't typically have a large corpus of what a particular author has written to learn from. The author will undoubtedly want to produce something different. If the output is expected to be more detailed than the input, the LLM has to make up details. These may or may not be what the writer intended. Some positive uses of LLMs for creative writing Writing is like software development: Given an idea of what is wanted, software developers produce code (text in a computer language) analogously to how writers produce text in a natural language. LLMs treat writing code and writing natural language text the same way; the corpus each LLM is trained on contains both natural language and code. What's produced depends on the context. Writers can learn from the experience of software developers. LLMs are good for small projects that have been done previously by many other people, such as database queries or writing standard letters. They are also useful for parts of larger projects, such as a pop-up box in a graphical user interface. If programmers want to use them for bigger projects, they need to be prepared to generate multiple outputs and edit the one that is closest to what is intended. The problem in software development has always been specifying exactly what is wanted; coding is the easy part. Generating good prompts How to generate good prompts has been advocated as an art form called "prompt engineering." Proponents of prompt engineering have suggested multiple techniques that improve the output of current LLMs, such as asking for an outline and then asking for the text based on the original prompt augmented with the outline. Another is to ask the LLM to show its reasoning steps, as in so-called chain of thought. The LLM outputs don't just the answer a question, but explains the steps that could be taken to answer it. The LLM uses those steps as part of its prompt to get its final answer. Such advice is bound to be ephemeral. If some prompt-engineering technique works, it will be incorporated into a future release of the LLM, so that the effect happens without the need for the explicit use of the technique. Recent models that claim to reason have incorporated such step-by-step prompts. People want to believe Computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum, describing his ELIZA programme written in 1964-66, said: "I was startled to see how quickly and how very deeply people conversing with (the programme) became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it." The tools have changed, but people still want to believe. In this age of misinformation, it is important for everyone to have a way to judge the often self-serving hype. There is no magic in generative AI, but there is lots of data from which to predict what someone could write. I hope that creativity is more than regurgitating what others have written.
Share
Copy Link
An exploration of why AI, despite its advancements, cannot fully replace human creativity in writing, discussing the nature of large language models, their limitations, and potential uses in the creative process.
The Evolution of Language Models
The concept of probabilistic language models dates back to 1948 when Claude Shannon, the founder of information theory, proposed modeling language based on the probability of the next word in a sentence given the previous words. This idea, initially derided by linguists like Noam Chomsky, has now culminated in the creation of advanced AI systems like ChatGPT 123.
ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM), learns from an extensive corpus of internet text to predict the probability of the next word given a context. This breakthrough, coming 74 years after Shannon's proposal, was made possible by unprecedented amounts of data and computing power 123.
Understanding LLMs and Their Limitations
LLMs generate text by selecting words based on probabilistic predictions, akin to drawing words from a hat where higher probability words have more copies. While this produces seemingly intelligent text, it's crucial to distinguish between LLM "creativity" and human creativity 123.
Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter described LLMs as having "a mind-boggling hollowness hidden just beneath its flashy surface." Linguist Emily Bender and colleagues termed them "stochastic parrots," emphasizing that they essentially repeat training data with randomness 12.
The Nature of Human Creativity vs. AI Generation
Human creativity involves conveying unique ideas, whereas LLMs generate text based on patterns in their training data. Creative writers typically aim to produce original content, not what a random person might write. LLMs, lacking a comprehensive understanding of an individual author's style or intentions, may generate details that don't align with the writer's vision 123.
Potential Uses of LLMs in Creative Writing
Despite limitations, LLMs can be beneficial in certain aspects of creative writing:
- Small projects: LLMs excel at tasks like writing standard letters or database queries 123.
- Components of larger works: They can assist with specific elements, such as creating a pop-up box in a user interface 123.
- Idea generation: Writers can use LLMs to spark ideas or explore different narrative directions 123.
The Art of Prompt Engineering
To maximize LLM effectiveness, "prompt engineering" has emerged as a technique to generate better outputs. This includes strategies like:
- Requesting outlines before full text generation
- Asking for step-by-step reasoning (chain of thought)
However, as LLMs evolve, these techniques may become obsolete as they're integrated into future model iterations 123.
The Human Element in AI Interaction
The tendency to anthropomorphize AI isn't new. In the 1960s, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum observed how quickly people became emotionally involved with his ELIZA program. This human inclination to attribute human-like qualities to AI persists with modern language models 12.
Conclusion
While AI has made significant strides in language generation, it cannot truly replace human creativity in writing. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of LLMs is crucial for writers and educators to effectively leverage these tools while maintaining the irreplaceable value of human creativity and intention in the writing process.
Google Offers Free Weekend Access to Gemini's Veo 3 AI Video Generation Tool
Google is providing free users of its Gemini app temporary access to the Veo 3 AI video generation tool, typically reserved for paying subscribers, for a limited time this weekend.
3 Sources
Technology
18 hrs ago
3 Sources
Technology
18 hrs ago
UK Government Considers Nationwide ChatGPT Plus Access in Talks with OpenAI
The UK's technology secretary and OpenAI's CEO discussed a potential multibillion-pound deal to provide ChatGPT Plus access to all UK residents, highlighting the government's growing interest in AI technology.
2 Sources
Technology
2 hrs ago
2 Sources
Technology
2 hrs ago
AI-Generated Articles Slip Through Editorial Filters at Major Publications
Multiple news outlets, including Wired and Business Insider, have been duped by AI-generated articles submitted under a fake freelancer's name, raising concerns about the future of journalism in the age of artificial intelligence.
4 Sources
Technology
2 days ago
4 Sources
Technology
2 days ago
Google's New Gemini-Powered Smart Speaker: A Glimpse into the Future of AI Home Assistants
Google inadvertently revealed a new smart speaker during its Pixel event, sparking speculation about its features and capabilities. The device is expected to be powered by Gemini AI and could mark a significant upgrade in Google's smart home offerings.
5 Sources
Technology
1 day ago
5 Sources
Technology
1 day ago
The Evolution of Search: How AI and Changing User Behavior Are Reshaping Digital Marketing
As AI and new platforms transform search behavior, brands must adapt their strategies beyond traditional SEO to remain visible in an increasingly fragmented digital landscape.
2 Sources
Technology
1 day ago
2 Sources
Technology
1 day ago
Your Daily Dose of Curated AI News
Don’t drown in AI news. We cut through the noise - filtering, ranking and summarizing the most important AI news, breakthroughs and research daily. Spend less time searching for the latest in AI and get straight to action.
