What happens when you ask AI to write a story?
Once
upon a time, in a beautiful forest, there lived a panda named Poppy.
Poppy was a cute and cuddly panda with black and white fur who loved to
play and eat bamboo.
One day, while playing with her friends,
Poppy noticed that there were no more bamboo leaves left on the nearby
bushes. She asked her friends where all the bamboo had gone, but they
didn’t know either. Poppy decided to go on an adventure to find more
bamboo
She travelled through the forest, over hills and valleys, until
Error in body stream
OK... Let's take it a step at a time.
Once upon a time…
Come on, are you serious? This is 2023, not 1723.
in a beautiful forest
Banal.
'Beautiful' adds nothing here except trying to make the scene cosy and
the line longer. How was it beautiful? Tell us something about the
forest. What even is a ‘beautiful forest’? One covered in glitter? One with a bow in its hair or trout lips?
there lived a panda named Poppy
Where
to start? Poppy. Pandas live in China. Poppy is not a Chinese name.
Please change for reasons of cultural sensitivity. ‘There lived a’ isn’t
an engaging active construction. Why isn't the panda the object of the
sentence?
This first sentence is better phrased as ‘A panda
called Poppy lived in a beautiful forest.’ Now you can see how banal it
is immediately, but at least it’s easier for a child to understand. It’s
not that we don’t want children to enjoy language or read anything
slightly challenging — we do. It’s that we want them to enjoy language
used creatively to good effect. This first sentence is obfuscating with
the sole intention of emulating the syntax of what the AI perceives to
be a children’s story. Nil points. We don't even need to say Poppy is a
panda as that's clear from the picture. So far, we could just have a
picture of the panda in the forest with the annottion 'Poppy' and an
arrow.
Poppy was a cute and cuddly panda
By
whose reckoning? Have you seen the claws on a panda? Cuddle at your
own risk. Not sure AIs can cuddle anyway. Further, these are attributes
of the person(/AI) perceiving the panda. These attributes are
constructed by the way we perceive and interact with the panda and are
not innate to pandahood.
with black and white fur
As
opposed to what? All those peacock-patterned pandas? Also, don’t state
things that will be clear in the artwork. You’re wasting your word count
and the child’s effort to read the words. Remember, the child is an
emergent reader. They might struggle over every word. Make every word
worthwhile.
who loved to play and eat bamboo
So,
basically, who liked being a panda? Because a panda that doesn’t eat
bamboo is soon an ex-panda. Would you write ‘Poppy was a child who loved
to eat food’?
This first paragraph has no action; it’s scene
setting. We don’t generally do that in picture books. We start with
action and the scene emerges. A five-year-old doesn’t need your info
dump. Keep it in your head and use it to inform the story as it
unravels. Oh, AIs don’t have a head. Sorry, forgot. And also there's
virtually no info in this dump; it's a fluff dump.
One day, while playing with her friends,
Banal
but harmless. At least it’s moved into some action. You’d be more
likely to find this pedestrian stuff in an early chapter book, though.
What's she playing? Croquet? Cluedo?
Poppy noticed that there were no more bamboo leaves left on the nearby bushes
What,
she just noticed she was going to starve and it was mildly interesting?
Or perhaps there were no bamboo leaves on the nearby bushes because
bamboo isn’t a bush so there will never, ever be bamboo leaves on the
nearby bushes. Bamboo is a type of grass. It does not grow like a bush.
It grows with long, unbifurcated stems. But none ‘left’, which suggests
there were previously bamboo leaves on the bushes, so perhaps she lives
in a genetically-engineered panda-preservation park or an alternative
universe? Maybe it’s about to get interesting. God knows, it could do
with it.
She asked her friends where all the bamboo had gone, but they didn’t know either
So
they aren’t party to this Trueman-show-for-pandas set up, then. But
happily frolicking in the face of certain famine because they’re dumber
than an AI?
Poppy decided to go on an adventure to find more bamboo
It
would be better just to go and look for some bamboo. She’s only
deciding, not doing something. We like physical activity in picture
books, not mental activity of the vague-intention variety. Deciding to
go on an adventure is a pretty hit-and-miss approach to dealing with
imminent starvation. I’d say you can’t really decide to have an
adventure anyway. You can put yourself in the way of adventure, but pace
Malory, you have to ‘accepte the adventur that Godde woll ordeyn’ for
you. That might be a good deal more exciting than finding a bamboo
plantation. But perhaps less useful as a solution to the problem of
hunger.
She travelled through the forest, over hills and valleys, until
Until
thankfully the AI crashed. Or maybe she found the adventure, and it
involved a panda-eating monster. Hooray! Something innovative at last!
Maybe the AI does have a grip and it’s deliberately playing with the
tired conventions* to lull us into a misplaced sense of security before…
Error in body stream
No.
Before it crashes because its story goes nowhere. We’ve all been there.
Don’t worry, AI. The traditional advice is to keep writing and you’ll
improve. Maybe. But at least you’ll be occupied. And next time, don't
keep using the same sentence structure: bla bla, subordinate clause, bla
bla
What does this story say? A panda couldn’t find any bamboo
so looked somewhere else. Is your child going to be interested in this
story?
Now, it's only fair to let the student respond to feedback or have
another go, so I posted ChatGPT's story back to it with a request for a
critique. It noticed the story wasn't finished, completed it and then
acurately assessed that its story was shite:
Here's the ending:
...she
finally came to a clearing where she saw a group of animals who were
hoarding all the bamboo for themselves. Poppy approached them and asked
if she could have some of the bamboo to feed her family and friends.
The
animals refused and told Poppy that there was not enough bamboo for
everyone and that they needed to protect their own supply. Poppy tried
to reason with them and explain that they were all part of the same
forest community and should share resources. But the animals would not
listen.
Determined to find a solution, Poppy decided to plant
her own bamboo garden. She worked hard, planting and nurturing the
bamboo shoots until they grew into a lush forest of their own. Poppy
invited all the animals to come and share in the bounty of her garden.
The
animals were amazed at Poppy's kindness and hard work, and soon
realized that by working together and sharing resources, they could all
live in harmony. From that day on, Poppy became known as the "Bamboo
Keeper" and was loved and respected by all the animals in the forest.
I'm not going through all this in the same vein, but you can see at a
glance it's modelled on those (usually American) worthy, moral-laden
attempts that appeal to (some) parents more than to children. It's lost
the concept of language for a five-year-old, too.
And this is what it thinks of its own story:
This
story has a good message of sharing and cooperation, but it could
benefit from a bit more detail and character development. For example,
what did Poppy go through on her journey to find the clearing? What
challenges did she face and how did she overcome them? What made the
animals finally see the value in sharing resources? Adding these details
would help to flesh out the story and make it more engaging for the
reader.
Its critique is as bad as its story. How
about a glance at the larger picture. WTF is this story about? Which
'forest animals' are hoarding bamboo? In China, the only bamboo-eating
mammals are giant panda, red panda and bamboo rat. (And how can it be a
clearing if it's full of bamboo? That's a challenge for the
illustrator.)
*If you want something that plays with tired conventions, Jon Scieszkahas already done it a lot better in Squids Will Be Squids, 2000.
Out now:
Baby Polar Bear, illustrated by Qu Lan, Oxford University Press, 2022
4 comments:
Well, that was fun!
For a 5 year-old??? A 5 year-old AI maybe. Great critique, Anne!
It's like a story written by a 5-year old, not for one! I run kids' writing contests occasionally, and also have proof of my own early writing prowess in several such stories! As someone whose profession (librarian) was going to be replaced by technology before I even started it (and we're busier than ever), I'd take such worries with a grain of salt, although I wouldn't put it past publishing to try to pay you all even less and charge us even more with AI-generated books (I don't know how the latter would work, but I bet they could make it work). Sorry, I'm annoyed about e-book prices, again.
ChatGPT never ceases to amaze me, but even the best have their moments. Looks like an error slipped through the body stream this time.
Chatgpt Error in Body Stream
Post a Comment