I’ve been experimenting on creative writing tools with a bunch of writer friends, and the setup described in this paper is notoriously shit. I mean they come up to ChatGPT on v3.5 (or Bard lmao) and expect it to write comedy ? Jeez talk about setting yourself up for failure. That’s like walking up to a junior screenwriter and yelling “GIVE ME A JOKE” to them. I don’t understand why people keep repeating that mistake, they design experiments where they expect the model to be the source of creativity but that’s just stupid.
If you want to get output that is not entirely mediocre, you need something like a Dramatron architecture where you decouple various task (fleshing out characters, outlining at the episode level, outlining at the scene level, writing dialogues etc…) and maintain internal memory of what is being worked on. It is non-trivial to setup but it gets there sometimes - even the authors of this paper recognize that this would have probably produced better results. You also need a user able to provide good ideas that the model can work with, you can’t expect the good creative stuff to come from the robot.
Instinctively i’d say you have to treat the model like your own junior writer, and how do you make a junior writer useful ? By teaching them to “yes, and” in a writing room with better writers (in this case, the user). In that context, with a good experienced user at the helm, it can definitely bring value. Nothing groundbreaking but i can see how a refined version of this could help, notably with consistency, story beats, pacing, the boring stuff. GPTs are better critics than they are writers anyway.
That being said i never really pursued “pure comedy” on LLMs as it sounds like a lost battle. In my mind it’s kind of like tickling : if a machine pokes your ribs you don’t get the tickles, that only works when a human does it. I doubt they can fix that in the short or mid term.
I mean they come up to ChatGPT on v3.5 (or Bard lmao) and expect it to write comedy?
Yeah, these things are supposed to be good at writing, aren’t they?
Define “good at writing”. Good comedy is very difficult to attain and none of the models are anywhere near it, including the more recent ones.
Define “good at writing”.
I don’t want to.
Good comedy is very difficult to attain and none of the models are anywhere near it, including the more recent ones.
I concur.
I like how you lose faith in your argument the longer your post goes on. Maybe start with the last sentence next time.
comment history also includes simulation hypothesis and some very eagleflavoured political analysis
I have a prediction!
No i’m saying comedy (as in writing your jokes for you) is not something you should expect from language models. As a general rule, there is no tool that will make you a good writer, only (potentially) tools that can help you do more with your qualities as a writer. But it will never be funnier or more talented than you are.
That’s why i personally experiment with writing tools. Writing standup is one thing, but imagine you’re writing a sitcom or any form of serialized work. That’s a lot of fucking work and obviously if you’re starting out you can’t exactly afford to pay for assistant writers to do the menial labour that comes with it. Language models can come in handy in that scenario, but again you can’t expect them to be the genius in the room if you want a good show you have to bring the good ideas and the funnies. It’s a power tool and power tools don’t draw the plans for the house they just grind where you need grinding.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You should read the room, delete your posts, and leave forever. Then you wouldn’t be getting downvoted.
