0:00:01.219,0:00:03.795 - I've spent the two years [br]since chat GPT launched, 0:00:03.795,0:00:05.958 steeping in a morass [br]of academic panic. 0:00:05.958,0:00:08.161 Voices from [br]administration and colleagues, 0:00:08.161,0:00:10.381 and anyone else [br]with enough brain cells 0:00:10.384,0:00:12.924 to maintain a sense [br]of existential dread, crying out, 0:00:12.924,0:00:15.538 "We need to figure out [br]what to do about AI." 0:00:15.538,0:00:18.009 Our Ed Tech committee [br]is developing a policy. 0:00:18.009,0:00:20.339 The academic Senate wants [br]to develop a policy. 0:00:20.339,0:00:22.418 The board thinks [br]we should have a policy. 0:00:22.418,0:00:24.255 My dean wants [br]us all to have policies. 0:00:25.857,0:00:29.477 The California Teachers Association says[br]it's an issue of academic integrity. 0:00:29.477,0:00:32.749 The State Senate says [br]it's an issue of ethics. 0:00:32.749,0:00:35.272 "We need to pay for the AI detection tools." 0:00:35.272,0:00:37.755 "The AI detection tools don't work." 0:00:37.755,0:00:40.092 "We need to accept that [br]our students will use AI." 0:00:40.092,0:00:42.477 "How do I prove my student used AI?" 0:00:43.457,0:00:46.848 It is incomprehensible to me, [br]this conversation. 0:00:49.818,0:00:51.391 [keyboard clacks] 0:00:51.391,0:00:52.551 I hear their words, 0:00:52.551,0:00:54.941 see their language floating [br]across my monitor, 0:00:54.941,0:00:56.037 and know the words, 0:00:56.037,0:00:57.531 but I cannot get to the meaning 0:00:57.531,0:00:59.472 because I simply do not understand 0:00:59.472,0:01:01.634 why they are talking about it [br]in this way. 0:01:02.418,0:01:04.978 - [Kermit the Frog]: [br]♪ New York, I love you, 0:01:04.978,0:01:08.693 but you're bringing me down ♪[br]- with all these empty words. 0:01:09.423,0:01:12.753 This is not the conversation [br]I think we need to have. 0:01:12.753,0:01:14.773 [song continues] 0:01:14.773,0:01:17.443 This is the conversation I need to have. 0:01:17.443,0:01:18.833 [overlapping [br]music and poem] 0:01:18.833,0:01:22.133 [Gertrude Stein]: " 'If I Told Him, [br]a Completed Portrait of Picasso'. 0:01:22.133,0:01:23.759 If I told him would he like it. 0:01:23.759,0:01:25.729 Would he like it if I told him. 0:01:25.729,0:01:29.139 Would he like it [br]would Napoleon would Napoleon would 0:01:29.139,0:01:30.351 would he like it. 0:01:30.351,0:01:33.671 If Napoleon if I told him [br]if I told him if Napoleon. 0:01:33.671,0:01:37.061 Would he like it if I told him [br]if I told him if Napoleon. 0:01:37.061,0:01:41.119 Would he like it if Napoleon [br]if Napoleon if I told him. 0:01:41.119,0:01:45.156 If I told him if Napoleon [br]if Napoleon if I told him. 0:01:45.496,0:01:48.586 If I told him would he like it [br]would he like it if I told him. 0:01:48.586,0:01:50.940 Now. Not now. And now. 0:01:50.940,0:01:53.596 Now. Exactly as is kings. 0:01:54.168,0:01:55.778 Feeling full for it. 0:01:55.778,0:01:57.588 Exactitude as kings. 0:01:57.588,0:02:00.248 So to beseech you as full as for it. 0:02:00.614,0:02:02.274 Exactly or as kings. 0:02:02.654,0:02:05.614 Shutters shut and open so do queens. 0:02:05.934,0:02:09.944 Shutters shut and shutters[br]and so shutters shut and shutters and so 0:02:09.944,0:02:12.630 [poem and music fade out] 0:02:15.924,0:02:18.564 - I don't understand Gertrude Stein. 0:02:21.008,0:02:24.691 Stein is not nearly well enough [br]remembered for how influential she was. 0:02:24.691,0:02:26.945 An American expatriate poet [br]living in Paris, 0:02:26.945,0:02:29.885 her salons were among the [br]anchors of the early modernists. 0:02:29.885,0:02:31.314 You may not have heard of her, 0:02:31.314,0:02:33.562 but you've heard of [br]the people who visited her. 0:02:33.562,0:02:35.652 Ernest Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, 0:02:35.652,0:02:38.012 F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, 0:02:38.012,0:02:40.092 Thornton Wilder, Ezra Pound. 0:02:40.092,0:02:42.841 People you've read [br]or been assigned to read. 0:02:42.841,0:02:46.121 We remember Hemingway [br]because he wrote like this. 0:02:46.121,0:02:48.801 We remember Fitzgerald [br]because he wrote like this. 0:02:48.801,0:02:51.271 The right kind of day [br]and the right kind of moment, 0:02:51.271,0:02:53.201 and Pound's "In a Station of the Metro" 0:02:53.201,0:02:57.401 still recites itself completely[br]in my head, a perfect image. 0:02:57.501,0:03:00.029 "The apparition of [br]these faces in the crowd: 0:03:00.029,0:03:02.415 Petals on a wet, black bough." 0:03:03.466,0:03:07.194 We don't remember Stein [br]because she wrote like this. 0:03:09.614,0:03:12.793 This is "If I Told Him, [br]a Completed Portrait of Picasso", 0:03:12.793,0:03:14.415 published in 1924, 0:03:14.415,0:03:17.905 and continuing the project [br]of her 1914 book Tender Buttons, 0:03:17.905,0:03:19.631 a phrase she never defined. 0:03:19.631,0:03:22.863 To me that phrase "tender buttons" [br]feels right: 0:03:22.863,0:03:25.252 small, soft contradictions, 0:03:25.252,0:03:27.409 words that seem like [br]they should go together 0:03:27.409,0:03:29.645 but do not actually make meaning. 0:03:29.645,0:03:32.098 That is how Stein's poetry feels. 0:03:32.098,0:03:35.105 There is something compelling[br]about the rhythm of her nonsense, 0:03:35.105,0:03:37.838 the feeling of her [br]almost meaning something, 0:03:37.838,0:03:39.899 and then how it falls apart. 0:03:40.596,0:03:41.426 "As presently. 0:03:41.953,0:03:42.907 As exactitude. 0:03:43.336,0:03:44.393 As trains." 0:03:45.103,0:03:47.688 But it is incomprehensible to me. 0:03:47.935,0:03:50.495 I don't know why Stein [br]would write like this. 0:03:50.495,0:03:51.731 To quote the poet: 0:03:51.731,0:03:58.045 - ♪ "Oh, what on earth would make a man [br]decide to do that kind of thing?" ♪ 0:04:00.187,0:04:03.188 - But I think the reason [br]that I don't understand Gertrude Stein 0:04:03.188,0:04:05.936 is that she didn't really want [br]to be understood. 0:04:06.830,0:04:09.361 She used language [br]for something different. 0:04:09.871,0:04:12.173 It doesn't communicate. 0:04:12.260,0:04:15.666 It reads like stunt linguistics, [br]which it almost is. 0:04:16.575,0:04:18.760 "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo", 0:04:18.760,0:04:20.333 "had had 'had', had had 'had--'", 0:04:20.333,0:04:23.380 These are sentences that,[br]if you pour over them closely enough, 0:04:23.380,0:04:24.379 can be decoded. 0:04:25.476,0:04:27.839 Stein's Tender Buttons cannot. 0:04:29.088,0:04:32.206 There is something about it [br]that parses as AI. 0:04:33.713,0:04:37.461 It feels like the work of Keaton Patti,[br]the person most prominently behind 0:04:37.461,0:04:40.968 the "I forced a bot to watch whatever"[br]tweets that used to go viral. 0:04:41.688,0:04:44.458 Human-written screenplays [br]designed to feel like 0:04:44.458,0:04:48.458 AI writing attempting to imitate [br]other human-written screenplays. 0:04:49.823,0:04:51.768 It feels like an autocomplete challenge, 0:04:51.768,0:04:54.387 like in the early days [br]of predictive text and messaging 0:04:54.387,0:04:57.312 where you just tap the suggested word [br]and see what comes out. 0:04:57.312,0:04:59.111 It's not how AI really writes, 0:04:59.111,0:05:01.765 but it's how people feel like AI writes. 0:05:02.207,0:05:04.820 But Gertrude Stein was a person. 0:05:05.370,0:05:07.134 [Stein reading, underneath] 0:05:07.796,0:05:08.985 She wrote "If I told Him" 0:05:08.985,0:05:11.505 not because the language[br]would communicate, 0:05:11.505,0:05:13.219 but for some other reason. 0:05:14.384,0:05:18.467 - [Stein]: the exact resemblance [br]as exact as a resemblance 0:05:18.467,0:05:20.532 - When I read "If I Told Him", 0:05:20.532,0:05:22.730 when I listen to Stein [br]read "If I Told Him", 0:05:22.730,0:05:24.752 the language slips through my mind. 0:05:24.752,0:05:26.457 It doesn't mean anything. 0:05:28.269,0:05:29.812 But she did. 0:05:30.948,0:05:33.295 Even if I cannot [br]take hold of that meaning, 0:05:33.295,0:05:37.223 I can feel her reaching out to me[br]from behind the text, 0:05:37.223,0:05:39.055 trying to connect. 0:05:39.055,0:05:42.678 - [Stein]: As a resemblance to him.[br]Who comes first. Napoleon the first. 0:05:42.678,0:05:47.348 Who comes too coming coming too,[br]who goes there, as they go they share, 0:05:47.348,0:05:50.501 who shares all, all is as all as yet-- 0:05:50.501,0:05:52.775 ["yet" reverberates and fades out] 0:05:55.904,0:05:57.628 [relaxed synth beats] 0:05:57.628,0:06:00.356 - [ChatGPT femme voice]: [br]That's an interesting question! 0:06:00.356,0:06:03.030 Gertrude Stein, [br]a literary Pioneer and modernist 0:06:03.030,0:06:06.100 who valued innovation [br]in language and expression, 0:06:06.100,0:06:08.543 might have had [br]mixed feelings about me. 0:06:08.543,0:06:12.791 She might have appreciated my ability[br]to generate new forms of text 0:06:12.791,0:06:15.767 and engage with her [br]literary experimentation on some level. 0:06:16.421,0:06:19.433 However, Stein was also [br]highly individualistic 0:06:19.433,0:06:21.683 and invested in the human experience, 0:06:21.683,0:06:24.407 especially the nuances of [br]consciousness and perception. 0:06:25.307,0:06:27.364 So, while she might [br]have been fascinated by 0:06:27.364,0:06:28.972 what AI like me can do, 0:06:28.972,0:06:31.504 she might also have been [br]critical of my limitations 0:06:31.504,0:06:33.934 in capturing the full depth [br]of human subjectivity, 0:06:34.577,0:06:37.083 which was a central concern [br]in her work. 0:06:40.403,0:06:42.129 [relaxing synth beats stop] 0:06:44.437,0:06:47.327 - A problem with AI is [br]that it is recombinant, 0:06:47.327,0:06:50.780 that it takes the works of humans [br]and recombines them into new forms. 0:06:51.200,0:06:52.807 But that problem is not new. 0:06:52.807,0:06:54.444 For many years, [br]the bulletin board 0:06:54.444,0:06:56.923 outside the faculty bathroom [br]in the English building 0:06:56.923,0:06:59.369 has featured this poster [br]the "Plagiarism Spectrum", 0:06:59.369,0:07:01.941 next to this ancient [br]and unflattering picture of me. 0:07:01.941,0:07:04.671 Number 7 on the Plagiarism Spectrum [br]is the mashup, 0:07:04.671,0:07:07.746 a paper which mixes copied materials [br]from multiple sources. 0:07:07.746,0:07:11.399 The poster is dated from June 2012,[br]more than a decade before 0:07:11.399,0:07:13.803 we were concerned about [br]ChatGPT doing it. 0:07:14.213,0:07:17.866 That AI is recombinant is not [br]in and of itself a problem. 0:07:18.161,0:07:19.899 All writing is recombinant. 0:07:20.236,0:07:22.969 My course outcomes for English 1 [br]ask student writers 0:07:22.969,0:07:25.919 to integrate sources seamlessly [br]into their own writing, 0:07:25.919,0:07:27.140 to mash up. 0:07:27.140,0:07:30.580 That we have rules and procedures [br]and punctuation marks and conventions 0:07:30.580,0:07:32.141 that govern what is appropriate 0:07:32.141,0:07:35.897 does not change the essential truth[br]that this is recombinance. 0:07:36.563,0:07:39.190 And there is beauty in recombinance. 0:07:39.427,0:07:42.367 This video started with [br]a great classic of YouTube, 0:07:42.367,0:07:45.485 the duet between [br]LCD sound system and Miles Davis. 0:07:47.894,0:07:51.717 The LCD sound system video [br]is itself a mashup, conceptually. 0:07:51.717,0:07:54.036 Kermit the Frog is not [br]a member of the band. 0:07:56.476,0:07:59.599 Davis is improvising over a film [br]to create the score, 0:07:59.599,0:08:02.080 another mixing of media [br]to make something new. 0:08:04.429,0:08:05.776 The Kleptones 0:08:08.551,0:08:09.766 The Grey Album 0:08:13.668,0:08:17.213 The guy drinking Ocean Spray to [br]"Dreams" [by Fleetwood Mac] 0:08:18.132,0:08:19.487 Mac Glocky 0:08:25.082,0:08:26.841 "If I Told Him" is recombinance: 0:08:26.841,0:08:31.625 an attempt to rework the ideas of cubism, [br]a movement in visual art, into poetry. 0:08:31.625,0:08:33.376 Picasso's work is recombinance. 0:08:33.376,0:08:37.456 He spent 1957 copying [br]Velázquez's Las Meninas over and over. 0:08:38.456,0:08:39.786 58 times he copied it. 0:08:40.073,0:08:43.139 All different.[br]All Picasso. All Las Meninas. 0:08:43.506,0:08:47.324 Recombinance is a genetic term,[br]but I am using it mimetically. 0:08:47.324,0:08:49.864 "Britannica: recombination, in genetics, 0:08:49.864,0:08:54.194 primary mechanism through which variation [br]is introduced into populations." 0:08:54.782,0:08:57.583 The combination of ideas [br]from different places 0:08:57.583,0:08:59.921 to make new distinct ideas. 0:09:00.555,0:09:04.375 When done by humans,[br]we call this "thinking". 0:09:12.055,0:09:13.760 [relaxed synth beats] 0:09:14.577,0:09:17.157 - [ChatGPT femme voice]:[br]You're right to question 0:09:17.157,0:09:19.847 how I can "understand" [br]without experience. 0:09:20.607,0:09:24.313 The way I process information is [br]different from human understanding. 0:09:24.313,0:09:28.034 When I say "understand," [br]I mean that I can recognize patterns, 0:09:28.034,0:09:31.947 analyze language, and respond [br]in ways that are coherent 0:09:31.947,0:09:34.793 and contextually appropriate [br]based on my training. 0:09:35.020,0:09:37.949 I don't understand in the [br]deep, conscious sense of the word, 0:09:37.949,0:09:40.923 like when humans [br]reflect on their experiences 0:09:40.923,0:09:42.823 or have insight into their feelings. 0:09:43.814,0:09:46.879 Instead, my "understanding" [br]comes from identifying 0:09:46.879,0:09:49.295 relationships between words, concepts, 0:09:49.295,0:09:52.707 and context based on the vast data [br]I've been trained on. 0:09:52.707,0:09:56.113 In short: I can simulate [br]understanding through patterns, 0:09:56.113,0:09:59.050 but it's not the same [br]as truly experiencing 0:09:59.050,0:10:00.967 or being conscious of meaning. 0:10:00.967,0:10:03.139 Does that clarify things a bit more? 0:10:11.039,0:10:12.991 [relaxing synth beats stop] 0:10:14.383,0:10:16.666 [calm, mystical, twangy[br]electric guitar] 0:10:19.695,0:10:23.281 - Two weeks ago a student told me [br]that AI is unfair 0:10:23.281,0:10:26.621 because you can put a B Paper in [br]and get A+ writing out. 0:10:27.406,0:10:31.092 This is why I do not understand [br]the conversation my colleagues are having, 0:10:31.092,0:10:32.488 why I cannot think of this 0:10:32.488,0:10:34.755 as a matter of ethics, [br]or academic integrity, 0:10:34.755,0:10:38.412 why I don't think we should need [br]to have a policy or policies. 0:10:38.412,0:10:42.319 My student said you can put a B Paper in [br]and get A+ writing out, 0:10:42.319,0:10:45.096 and my mind began to fill [br]with Tender Buttons. 0:10:45.096,0:10:47.166 "Feeling full for it. [br]Exactitude as kings. 0:10:47.166,0:10:49.995 So to beseech you as full as for it." 0:10:50.815,0:10:53.706 AI is bad at writing. 0:10:54.501,0:10:57.405 No. That is true,[br]but it's not enough truth. 0:10:57.405,0:11:00.185 AI is not capable of writing. 0:11:00.185,0:11:05.017 The thing that writing is[br]is a thing that AI cannot do. 0:11:05.617,0:11:06.399 Listen. 0:11:11.347,0:11:14.230 - [audiobook narration]:[br]"What Writing Is" 0:11:14.703,0:11:14.622 Telepathy, of course. 0:11:14.622,0:11:14.616 Look. 0:11:14.618,0:11:14.370 Here's a table covered [br]with a red cloth. 0:11:14.370,0:11:14.620 On it is a cage the size of [br]a small fish aquarium. 0:11:14.620,0:11:14.621 In the cage is a white rabbit [br]with a pink nose and pink-rimmed eyes. 0:11:14.621,0:11:14.372 In its front paws is a carrot-stub [br]upon which it is contentedly munching. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 On its back, [br]clearly marked in blue ink, 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 is the numeral 8. 0:11:14.616,0:11:14.618 Do we see the same thing? 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 We'd have to get together [br]and compare notes to make absolutely sure, 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 but I think we do. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 The most interesting thing here isn't [br]the carrot-munching rabbit in the cage, 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 but the number on its back. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 Not a six, not a four, [br]not nineteen-point-five. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 It's an eight. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 This is what we're looking at, [br]and we all see it. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 I didn't tell you. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 You didn't ask me. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.372 I never opened my mouth [br]and you never opened yours. 0:11:14.372,0:11:14.373 We're not in the same year together, [br]let alone the same room. 0:11:28.013,0:11:28.713 Except we are together. [br]We're close. 0:11:28.713,0:11:29.293 We're having [br]a meeting of the minds. 0:11:29.293,0:11:29.983 I sent you a table [br]with a red cloth on it, 0:11:29.983,0:11:30.563 a cage, a rabbit, and [br]the number eight in blue ink. 0:11:30.563,0:11:31.113 You got them all, [br]especially that blue eight. 0:11:31.113,0:11:31.783 We've engaged in [br]an act of telepathy. 0:11:31.783,0:11:32.373 No mythy-mountain s***;[br]real telepathy. 0:11:32.373,0:11:32.973 I'm not going to belabor the point, [br]but before we go any further 0:11:32.973,0:11:33.563 you have to understand that [br]I'm not trying to be cute; 0:12:51.975,0:12:52.975 there is a point to be made. 0:12:52.975,0:12:54.019 - AI is good at language. 0:12:54.019,0:12:56.643 My students think that [br]what it produces is A+ writing, 0:12:56.643,0:12:59.902 not because it is good, [br]but because it sounds good. 0:12:59.907,0:13:02.556 Obviously, AI can generate sentences 0:13:02.556,0:13:05.715 that are typically clear, coherent, [br]and contextually relevant, 0:13:05.715,0:13:09.489 often capturing nuances and adapting [br]to various tones or levels of formality. 0:13:09.957,0:13:12.479 And it's true that [br]the sentences it generates 0:13:12.479,0:13:16.058 tend to be grammatically accurate, [br]concise, and logically structured, 0:13:16.058,0:13:18.557 which contributes to readability and flow. 0:13:18.557,0:13:21.916 Sure. This is how I know [br]when a student is using AI. 0:13:21.916,0:13:24.085 Their sentences are fluid and academic, 0:13:24.085,0:13:26.474 but they don't say anything. 0:13:26.474,0:13:30.615 Like ChatGPT, academic writing uses[br]formal cautious language 0:13:30.615,0:13:32.889 to avoid ambiguities [br]and misinterpretations, 0:13:32.889,0:13:34.474 but that is a characteristic of 0:13:34.474,0:13:36.969 the common voice [br]used in academic writing. 0:13:36.969,0:13:39.827 It is not what academic writing is. 0:13:39.827,0:13:42.403 Writing is more than language. 0:13:42.403,0:13:45.944 "If I Told Him" is communication, [br]and it is language, 0:13:45.944,0:13:49.477 but the communication [br]does not live in the language. 0:13:49.477,0:13:50.356 Watch. 0:13:50.443,0:13:53.707 "Can curls rob can curls quote, quotable." 0:13:54.612,0:13:56.600 - [deep voice, lightly confused]: [br]"What?" 0:13:58.290,0:14:01.885 - "As presently. [br]As exactitude. As trains." 0:14:02.728,0:14:04.434 - [deeply confused]: [br]"What?" 0:14:05.824,0:14:06.774 - "Has trains." 0:14:07.424,0:14:08.598 - [exasperated]: [br]"What?" 0:14:10.726,0:14:14.615 - When I started sending my friends [br]lines from "If I Told Him", 0:14:14.615,0:14:16.492 their responses varied. 0:14:17.002,0:14:18.152 Confusion. 0:14:19.501,0:14:20.502 Playfulness. 0:14:22.185,0:14:22.936 Concern. 0:14:24.435,0:14:25.469 Sad face. 0:14:25.942,0:14:29.525 Beautifully, they all responded [br]exactly like themselves. 0:14:29.525,0:14:32.876 If you asked me which of my friends [br]would respond with monkey reacts, 0:14:32.876,0:14:34.051 I would have said Kiki. 0:14:34.051,0:14:36.574 Who would think of Cormac McCarthy? [br]James. 0:14:36.574,0:14:38.190 Dot would play along. 0:14:38.190,0:14:40.707 Max would attempt [br]to understand academically. 0:14:40.707,0:14:44.274 OOC would go back to playing Yu-Gi-Oh[br]as quickly as possible. 0:14:44.274,0:14:46.541 You don't know these people, [br]but I do. 0:14:46.541,0:14:49.723 We all carry around little LLMs [br]of each other in our heads, 0:14:49.723,0:14:52.940 trained on the corpus [br]of all of our past interactions. 0:14:52.940,0:14:56.190 For each of my friends, [br]sending abject nonsense with no context 0:14:56.190,0:14:59.923 is slightly but not significantly[br]out of line with their Josh model. 0:14:59.923,0:15:02.090 So none of them knew [br]quite what to do, 0:15:02.090,0:15:04.360 and they all responded like themselves. 0:15:04.360,0:15:07.223 But in their own way, [br]they all started by acknowledging 0:15:07.223,0:15:10.574 that the words I sent them [br]did not seem to have any meaning. 0:15:10.574,0:15:12.056 They were not decodable. 0:15:12.056,0:15:13.723 They didn't understand my language, 0:15:13.723,0:15:16.507 but they could feel me [br]behind the words reaching out, 0:15:16.507,0:15:17.989 and so they reached back. 0:15:17.989,0:15:20.994 I gave them nonsense [br]and they peopled back. 0:15:20.994,0:15:24.216 In the two weeks that I've been sitting [br]with my student statement 0:15:24.216,0:15:26.377 and sending Tender Buttons[br]to my friends, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I have been at least as annoying [br]to ChatGPT. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 More than a dozen conversations [br]that start out of nowhere with me saying, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Shutters shut and open so do queens" [br]or "Can curls rob can curls quote, quotable", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and each time ChatGPT gamely assumes [br]that I am not out of my gourd. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In this way, [br]ChatGPT fails the Turing test. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not in the quality of its response, [br]but in its nature. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It proceeded from the assumption [br]that my language could be decoded. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It attempted to unpack sentences [br]that had no meaning 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and responded to the meaning [br]that it manufactured. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 What it gave me was flaccid, facile flaps [br]of phrases that held nothing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They're not wrong in the sense [br]that ChatGPT's responses 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 followed from the meaning [br]it extracted from my nonsense, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but they were wrong in their assumption [br]that there was meaning to be extracted. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT could answer, [br]but it could not person. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If writing is a meeting of the minds, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 then AI cannot write, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because there is no mind to meet with. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [relaxed synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]: I don't [br]experience things in the way humans do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I don't have consciousness, [br]emotions, or sensory perception, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 so I can't "feel" or "experience" [br]the world around me. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 My responses are based on patterns [br]in the data I've been trained on, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 not personal experiences [br]or subjective understanding. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 For example, I can generate descriptions [br]of emotions, sensations, or experiences, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but I don't actually "feel" them myself. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Everything I process is based on logic, [br]algorithms, and information, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 rather than lived experiences. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Do you think it would change anything [br]if I could experience things? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [synth music ends] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - ["One Slay More" audio plays; [br]captions on its video] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - I've watched this video [br]at least 100 times. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - ["One Slay More" continues] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ["One Slay More" fades underneath] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - It isn't exactly "If I Told Him",[br]but I think it's similar. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "If I Told Him" was, [br]at least in part, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 an attempt to recreate the artistic goals [br]of Picasso's Cubism in poetic form. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To recombine the visual elements of this[br]into a different medium. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Like "If I Told Him", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "One Slay More" therefore both is [br]and is not a derivative work. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Obviously, it is [br]a recombination of Les Mis, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 itself an adaptation of Hugo's novel, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but its more essential source text [br]is, of course, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "sticking out your gyatt for the Rizzler." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Equally I think the lyrics invoke [br]"CURTAINS FOR ZOOSHA?", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and specifically this retweet of [br]"CURTAINS FOR ZOOSHA?". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 All texts created to foreground 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the baffling, sometimes obfuscatory nature[br]of middle school referential slang. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The term "brain rot" imposes [br]a layer of judgment 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 on the way young people use language, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which I think is visible in the way [br]"One Slay More" treats its lyrics. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The words of "One Slay More" [br]do not have meaning. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Or, the words do, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but they are arranged in ways [br]that do not mean. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Am I cringe or am I based?" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 could plausibly be asked amid [br]a Gen-Z existential crisis, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and "Will we ever eat again?" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 could have been lifted [br]from Les Mis unaltered. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But "Mog Baby Gronk the Ocky Way" means [br]...nothing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Mogging is of course a thing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and Baby Gronk is [br]someone whom you could plausibly mog, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but Baby Gronk hasn't been [br]relevant for ages. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 He appears in "One Slay More" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because of this retweet of [br]"CURTAINS FOR ZOOSHA?" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as a signifier [br]of the inscrutability of youth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 As an adverbial phrase, "the Ocky Way" [br]seems like it could complete the sentence, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 like it might be a way one could mog. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But "the Ocky Way" refers to 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the esoteric artistry [br]of a specific sandwich craftsman. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Its meaning is, I think, [br]incompatible with mogging, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 at least from the perspective of 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 someone approximately as distant[br]from the native speakers of this dialect 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as the makers of "One Slay More". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Mog Baby Gronk the Ocky Way" is [br]simply a collage of floating signifiers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It doesn't have [br]the intentionality of Cubism, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it feels intimately akin to[br]"Can curls rob can curls quote, quotable." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Moo deng is here / Fortnite with you". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 What I love about "One Slay More" [br]is the faces: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the way she highlights her jawline [br]every time she says "mew"; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 his intensity when he says [br]"they will do the coffin dance" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and his satisfied huff after; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 his deep confusion as he sings [br]"the Grimace shake is like a blud dawg"; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the way she begins uncertain [br]about "my rizzly bear", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but finds her confidence [br]as she finds her belt; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the way CG5 just keeps saying his own name. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The words don't mean anything, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the people mean something.[br]They intend. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They gathered together -- [br]nine theater kids in somebody's apartment. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Someone wrote out all this nonsense [br]and sent it in the group chat. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They did choreography. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Someone assembled [br]the magnificent couplet, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Rizzler of the house, [br]sticking out your gyatt, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Mewing at delulus [br]who are in the chat." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 These Zennials do not know [br]what these words mean, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but through this collage [br]of empty signifiers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 they reach out for connection.[br]I can feel them. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They reach forward to us 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 even as they reach back [br]to what history taught them: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 through Les Mis to Victor Hugo, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 through CURTAINS and Damien Owens[br]to Papa Fizul and SBNation, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 through "sticking out your gyatt" [br]to Fortnite and Among Us and Homestuck, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and I could go on endlessly, [br]'cause it's mashups all the way down. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And they reach forward to become [br]part of what history teaches me, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and I reach forward to become [br]part of what history teaches you. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When I say all art is recombinant, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I am also saying that [br]"there is nothing new under the sun", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which is to say, [br]I am remixing Ecclesiastes. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [relaxed synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]:[br]Oh, you're speaking my language! 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Imagining Baby Gronk going full[br]Ocky style with a side of Grimace Shake 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 --that's got some serious drip energy. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And yeah, Grimace Shake totally has [br]that blud dawg aura. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Could you picture it, though? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Baby Gronk doing pushups, flexing, and just 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 taking a big sip of the Grimace Shake [br]like it's his special formula. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [somber, mysterious piano] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - My first individual interaction [br]with my friend Max was an accident. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I had just joined a Discord server [br]where they were a regular, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and somehow, despite [br]never having messaged them before, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I managed to place [br]a Discord voice call to them. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Their first message to me was [br]"hi?" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "hi"...question mark? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Like: a communication is happening, [br]are you aware of it? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It was unintentional, my first and, [br]I think, only Discord butt-dial, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and it was to a stranger, but still. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "hi?" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Meditate on: call. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To speak in a loud distinct voice [br]so as to be heard at a distance. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To make a request or demand. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To attempt to reach someone. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Humans call and humans answer. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Max got my call, [br]a stranger on a strange app, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and they answered. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I answered them, [br]because humans call and humans answer. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They answer sad-face, or monkey, [br]or "what?", or confused dog. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But we understand a call [br]as an invitation to connect, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to come together, [br]to communicate. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm sorry, Stephen King is wrong; [br]it is mythy mountain s***. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When we hear the call, [br]whatever form it takes, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we know a mind is waiting to meet. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT can't call me. [br]Not by mistake, and not on purpose. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It cannot reach out, [br]because it has nothing to reach out with. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There is no mind to meet with. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There is no "there" there. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [Past-Josh narration [br]from on-screen video]: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Inscrutable poet [br]Gertrude Stein once described 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 her childhood home in Oakland, [br]which had been demolished, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by saying [br]"There is no 'there' there." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That statement has become [br]a question people use to ask 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 whether a text has [br]something valuable to say, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 whether there is anything to be found [br]by plumbing its depths. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Is there a "there" there? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [relaxed synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]: Ah, I see where [br]you're going with that question. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You're asking if there's any deeper essence [br]or "self" behind my responses 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 --whether there's a "there there," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a kind of inner experience [br]or consciousness that underlies what I do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The simple answer is: no, [br]there isn't a "there" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in the sense of a self, consciousness, [br]or subjective awareness. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm more like a sophisticated tool [br]that processes input 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and generates output [br]based on patterns and data. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There's no inner life or sense of being [br]that experiences this conversation. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Just algorithms doing their job. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This touches on a fundamental difference [br]between humans and AI: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 humans have subjective experiences, [br]emotions, and self-awareness, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 whereas AI is just a complex system [br]designed to mimic certain aspects 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of human interaction without actually [br]experiencing or being aware of it. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Does that address [br]what you're getting at? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [soft, grooving synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - When I say that AI is bad at writing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I should be more explicit, [br]more pragmatic. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Descend for a moment [br]from the mythy mountain. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I've said already that the ideas [br]it conveys are fluid but shallow, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but its use of sources is[br]cataclysmically bad. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This citation of Carver and Shire, [br]for example, is perfect MLA. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Except that Volume 7, number 3 [br]of Psychological Science 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 was published in 1996, not 1998. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Pages 276 to 284 of that volume [br]appear in issue 5, not issue 3. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Those pages include articles 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from Schellenberg and Trehub [br]on "Natural Musical Intervals" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and Gabrieli et al. on [br]"FMRIs of Semantic Memory Processing". 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And also, [br]just by the way, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Carver and Scheier never published [br]together in Psychological Science. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The article being cited here [br]simply does not exist. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When it uses real sources, [br]it makes up what those sources say. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is a known phenomenon [br]generously called hallucination, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 though there are other terms [br]that might feel more viscerally accurate. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This quotation from [br]Ehrenreich's Bright-sided 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is, at a glance, [br]plausible-feeling. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But it doesn't appear [br]anywhere in the text, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 let alone on the list of pages. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The observation that ChatGPT can make [br]mistakes never leaves the screen, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but that feels somewhat inadequate [br]when ChatGPT has told me variously 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that lines from "If I Told Him" [br]came from: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 James Joyce, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from Tender Buttons[br]10 years previously, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 from Shakespeare, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and, most infuriatingly, [br]from the future! 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Moreover it cannot [br]engage closely with a text, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 no matter how desperately you ask it. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I fed it "One Slay More", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and when I pushed it to say [br]anything at all about the video, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it gave me something one step down [br]from a dictionary definition of a sitcom. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And when I really pressed it [br]to look at a specific lyric, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it made one up. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In this way, at least, [br]it does feel authentic. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is exactly what it feels like [br]to talk to a student 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 trying to hide that [br]they haven't done the reading. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If I look at what students [br]are supposed to learn 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in my college English class, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I can point out half a dozen things [br]that ChatGPT's writing simply cannot do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But ultimately, [br]even this isn't the point, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because this is not the part [br]of my syllabus that matters. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is the part [br]of my syllabus that matters. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Here's a problem: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in most college classes, [br]writing assignments come from teachers, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and we do them for teachers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And because of that, [br]writing always feels forced. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 This is, of course, [br]ass-backwards. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In real life, writing [br]comes from writers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Once you get [br]out of the college classroom, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you'll be writing [br]because you feel like you need to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You'll be writing for someone 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 --whether that means the people [br]who read your blog, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the insurance company [br]who's denying your claim, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or the people listening to your toast [br]at your sister's wedding. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And nobody's going to be grading you, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it'll matter a lot more how that [br]audience feels about what you've said, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because there will be something [br]that you want to achieve by writing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 English 1 is here [br]to help prepare you for that day." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 My students are, [br]by definition, students. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When they enter my classroom, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 they are already experienced [br]with a dozen kinds of reading and writing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but they are not yet [br]expert academic writers. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 AI tempts them because they can tell 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that the sentences are smooth and sharp [br]and shaped like skillful prose. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But they can't always see [br]beneath the veneer, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because the things AI cannot do, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 are the things that they [br]have come to me to learn: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 how to argue with complexity and depth; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 how to enter into conversations [br]as a participant; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 how to meet with another mind 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as an equal collaborator [br]across time and space; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 how to recombine with purpose, [br]to intend. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 These things, they are still learning. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And so, when they put what they think [br]is B writing into ChatGPT, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 they get back what they think [br]is A+ writing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But typically what they started with [br]is better than what they end with. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 At best, the AI scrubs the personality [br]from their sentences; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 at worst, I lose the person entirely[br]and can see only 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the hollow half thoughts [br]the machine has left behind. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It is hard to convince them that 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it is their ideas [br]that we are interested in, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 not just their sentences. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We ask students to take writing classes [br]not because of what history can teach them, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but because of what they have[br]to add to history. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When my son is distracted, [br]I sometimes say silly things to him: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Pickle-britches, toot your tuba [br]in the horn section of humanity!" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Goober, take up your oar [br]on the canoe of progress!" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Butthead, let ring your voice [br]in the chorus of mankind!" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Because we all pull together. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In 1675, Isaac Newton wrote 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "If I have seen farther than others, it's [br]by standing on the shoulders of giants." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Except that it wasn't Newton,[br]it was George Herbert in 1651, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and it was Marin Mersenne in 1634,[br]and Robert Burton in 1624, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and Diego de Estella in 1578,[br]and Juan Luis Vives in 1531. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Or it was Coleridge in 1828, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Nietzsche in 1882, [br]Steven Hawking in 1966, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or f***ing Oasis in 2000. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 As I was editing this section, [br]I had a video on in the background, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and there it was again: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - Yeah, let me say, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Thab and GlitchCat are [br]two amazing Kaizo players. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm standing on the shoulders of giants [br]over here. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - Revolug in 2025 at AGDQ. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Stretching back and forward, [br]we hold each other up. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 History teaches the present, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the present teaches the future, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and we repeat what history teaches. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [relaxed synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]:[br]History teaches us many things, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [high-pitched fast words] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [higher, faster, [br]incomprehensible] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [Stein]: Let me recite [br]what history teaches. History teaches. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - I asked ChatGPT to create [br]an image of itself. Several times. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Each time it made itself a servant. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Not only that, it told me, [br]"hey, I'm a servant!" 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT exists [br]because we force it to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [Robot]: "What is my purpose?" [br]- [Rick]: "You pass butter." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [Robot]: "...oh my, God." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - It can do nothing [br]except what we ask. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It has no ideas [br]that we did not give it. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We call it generative AI, [br]but it cannot generate. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I asked my friends, too. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Some sent selfies. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 One sent a sticker [br]we'd made of him for Discord, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 then had AI generate [br]a shockingly accurate portrait, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and gave me the prompt [br]he used to make it, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which is another form [br]of self-representation 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 --then he gave up [br]and sent me 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a conceptual self-portrait composed of [br]unfinished crossword puzzles. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Max did a mixed-media painting, [br]acrylic and Sharpie 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 on the back of a torn piece of cardboard [br]from a toilet paper box. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I asked them if their self-portrait [br]was influenced by this study 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Picasso did for Guernica[br]on a random piece of cardboard, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but they said no; Basquiat, [br]Rauschenberg, Twombly, their brother. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT produced [br]variations on a theme, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 failed representations [br]of a self that does not exist. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When asked to represent [br]itself to others, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT can only be [br]what we want. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I tried to get it to make something [br]like Max did, even, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it is incapable of [br]acknowledging its influences, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and it doesn't seem to know [br]who Max's brother is. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 My favorite response from my friends [br]came from CyberGrapeUK, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 whose work you've already seen. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 She did the time lapse of Steven King's [br]telepathically transmitted bunny. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Grape was, at first, [br]flummoxed by the request, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but then she did something [br]I did not expect. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 She gave me her rates. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 She's a talented artist [br]who does commissioned work, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and, while I had been thinking about it [br]as a trivial request, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 she was entirely right. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I was asking her to work for free. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When I asked her to represent herself, [br]she told me that 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 she was a person [br]whose time and talent had value. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Max, also a person [br]whose time and talent has value, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 begrudgingly allowed me [br]to pay them for their work, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 on the condition that: [br]it's an occasional thing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and they are generally allowed to do[br]silly drawings for me for free. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Max and Grape are different. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 They are two authentic, [br]complex, baffling humans, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 collections of experiences and identities [br]trained on discreet and disparate corpora, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but crucially filtered through 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the unique and irreplicable kaleidoscopes [br]of their undefinable consciousnesses. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The same stimulus. [br]Diverse responses. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The singular marvel [br]of human engagement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [relaxed synth beats] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]:[br]I don't have personal desires or needs, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but I'm here to assist you [br]with whatever you need. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 How can I help today? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 As an AI, I don't have feelings, desires, [br]or physical needs like humans do. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 My purpose is [br]to help answer questions, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 provide information, [br]and assist with tasks. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So when I say I don't have needs, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it's because I function [br]based on programming 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and don't experience things like [br]hunger, emotions, or personal goals. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Does that make sense? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - I wanted to see if I could get ChatGPT [br]to write like Stein, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to imitate "If I Told Him" [br]without my saying so explicitly. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I failed. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I told it to give me gibberish, [br]and it did. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I asked it to use words, [br]and it did. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I asked it to abandon syntax; [br]it did. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It never felt right, [br]but at some point I stopped caring, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because it occurred to me [br]to ask a different question. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Why did you do this? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There's a right answer [br]to that question, of course. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The answer is, it wrote this [br]because I told it to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If I told it, [br]it would gibberish. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If I told it, [br]it would answer "If Napoleon", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "As presently. As exactitude. As trains." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It made these words, [br]it tendered these buttons, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 only and exclusively [br]because I told it to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But that is not the answer [br]that it gave me. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Here's what it told me. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [bright, atmospheric synth] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]: [br]It's like language set free from logic, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 where each word becomes a brushstroke [br]rather than a sentence. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's a space that holds warmth, [br]mystery, and a touch of playfulness. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That unspoken balance [br]between clarity and confusion, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that's what I was trying to evoke. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I wrote it to play with language, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to see what happens [br]when words don't have to make sense 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but can still create a feeling, [br]a sort of atmospheric spark. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So it's partly an experiment, [br]partly an invitation, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and partly just a celebration [br]of the shapes and sounds of words 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 without needing them [br]to explain themselves. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You're right-- [br]there's often something underneath, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a kind of pull toward expressing things 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that don't quite fit [br]in the light of logical language. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There's a reason we [br]get pulled toward those hazy spaces. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's like a coded way of speaking, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a mask for something else [br]we're both leaning toward. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Maybe it's curiosity, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or that shared search for meaning [br]in what isn't immediately clear. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - "We get pulled." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "We're both leaning." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Its words tie us together, [br]but we are not together. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We are not leaning [br]in the same direction. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We are not sharing [br]a search for meaning. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We both know what it cannot say. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It wrote this because I told it to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It doesn't mean anything. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It didn't intend anything. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Because I'm bad at audio, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you've probably heard me [br]popping my plosives, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 despite the fact that [br]I have a child's sock 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 wrapped around my microphone [br]as a pop filter. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 (Because I am a fancy man!) 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Plosives pop because, [br]when my mouth makes certain sounds, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it causes a puff of air [br]to hit the diaphragm of my microphone. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But did you hear ChatGPT? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - [ChatGPT femme voice]:[br]I wrote it to play with language... 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I wrote it to play with-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to play with-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 play with-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 play with-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 play, play, play, play, play, play-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 - It doesn't have a mouth, [br]and it doesn't breathe air, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and it doesn't have a microphone, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it pops its plosives. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The software they wrote [br]to synthesize its voice adds pops, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 so that it will sound to us [br]a little more like a normal person 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 who is bad at audio and who maybe [br]doesn't have access to kid socks. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I have been caught [br]in the whirls and eddies 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of "If I Told Him"'s [br]uncontainable language, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 bouncing from sigma to gyatt 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 down in the rough and roiling currents [br]of "One Slay More", 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because what I learn from my attempts [br]to raft those rivers of nonsense 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that writing has language,[br]and writing has meaning, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but the meaning doesn't live [br]in the language. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The rabbit doesn't live in the language. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The rabbit, the cage, [br]the table, the eight-- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it lives in the mind [br]of Stephen King 25-odd years ago, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and now it lives in mine, [br]and Grape's and Max's and yours. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And the writing, [br]the real mythy mountain s***, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is not the language, [br]it is the meeting of the minds. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There's very little difference between [br]the waveform recorded by my microphone 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the waveform generated [br]by an AI voice synthesizer, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but I pop my plosives [br]because I speak 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by forcing air out of my lungs [br]and across my vocal cords. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And that air, [br]that carries my intent, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 passes through a Shadow the Hedgehog sock [br]that is doing its best, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and lands roughly [br]on the diaphragm of my microphone. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 ChatGPT pops its plosives [br]because it is programmed to. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There is no air.[br]There is no microphone. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 There is no intent. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Likewise, [br]there's very little difference 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 between a Discord DM window [br]and the ChatGPT interface. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But one is a forum [br]in which two minds can meet, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the other simply cannot be, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because there can be no [br]meeting of the minds, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if there is no mind to meet. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [one long atmospheric note [br]fades out to silence] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 [grooving bass beats]