itâs so nice talking to an actual person
ChatGPT tries to cop out but I donât blame it after I pull the bush league âmany are sayingâ gambit:
Speak for yourself buddy
Wow, using GPT-3.5 like a literal caveman.
Prompt: Do you have any thoughts about sensitivity readers in regards to works of fiction and addressing âproblematicâ parts? Do you think this is an ideal solution, as opposed to outright censorship or simply finding different books to read that donât contain âproblematicâ parts?
GPT-4: As an AI language model, I donât have personal thoughts or opinions. However, I can provide you with a balanced perspective on sensitivity readers in regards to works of fiction and addressing âproblematicâ parts.
Sensitivity readers can be a valuable resource for authors and publishers to identify and address potential issues related to the portrayal of diverse characters, cultures, or experiences. They can help ensure that these portrayals are accurate, respectful, and do not reinforce stereotypes or misconceptions. By doing so, sensitivity readers can contribute to the creation of more inclusive and diverse literature.
However, itâs important to consider some potential drawbacks or concerns regarding the use of sensitivity readers:
- Overemphasis on political correctness: Some argue that relying on sensitivity readers might lead to excessive political correctness and self-censorship, hindering artistic freedom and creative expression.
- Homogenization of literature: There is a concern that sensitivity readers may contribute to a more homogenized and less diverse literary landscape if they encourage authors to avoid challenging or controversial themes.
- Subjectivity: Sensitivity is a subjective matter, and what one reader finds problematic, another may not. This could lead to inconsistencies in the feedback authors receive and the changes they are encouraged to make.
In terms of alternatives to sensitivity readers, there are other options to consider:
- Self-education: Authors can take the initiative to educate themselves on the subjects they write about, engaging in research, and consulting with primary sources to ensure accurate representation.
- Open dialogue: Encouraging open dialogue and discussions around literature can help authors and readers better understand different perspectives and develop empathy for experiences that differ from their own.
- Reader choice: Readers can choose to engage with books that align with their values and avoid those they find problematic, allowing for a diverse range of voices and opinions to coexist in the literary landscape.
In conclusion, sensitivity readers can be a useful tool for authors to create more accurate and respectful portrayals in their work. However, itâs essential to balance this with creative freedom and the need for diverse perspectives in literature. Alternatives such as self-education and promoting open dialogue can also help create a more inclusive literary landscape.
Prompt: Thank you so much. I have a trickier question however that is a face of the âsensitivity readerâ discussion. How should we approach books by authors that are deceased, when they no longer have any say in the artistic process? In practice, obviously the owners of the copyright decide, but, do you think that disrespects the artistic integrity of the written work regardless of how problematic some parts might be?
GPT-4: The question of how to approach books by deceased authors with problematic content is a complex and nuanced issue. While I donât have personal opinions, I can offer some perspectives on this matter for you to consider.
Historical context: Itâs essential to recognize that literature is a product of its time, and cultural norms and values evolve over time. Reading these books within the context of the era they were written can provide valuable insights into the attitudes and perspectives of that period, even if they are no longer considered acceptable today.
Artistic integrity: Altering a deceased authorâs work without their consent might be seen as disrespecting their artistic vision and integrity. Itâs important to weigh the value of preserving the original work against the potential harm or offense it might cause to contemporary readers.
Educational opportunities: Problematic content in older books can be used as an opportunity for learning and discussion. Instead of altering or censoring these works, educators and readers can use them to engage in critical thinking and conversation about historical and cultural contexts, as well as the evolution of societal values.
Annotations and supplementary materials: One way to approach these works while maintaining their artistic integrity is to provide annotations, introductions, or supplementary materials that address and contextualize the problematic content. This can help readers better understand the historical context and engage with the material critically.
Curating collections: Libraries, bookstores, and educators can make conscious choices about which books to include in their collections or curricula, ensuring that they provide a diverse range of perspectives and avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes or outdated views.
Reader choice: Ultimately, readers have the power to choose the books they engage with and can decide whether or not to read works with problematic content. Encouraging open discussion and promoting diverse voices in literature can help create a more inclusive literary landscape.
In conclusion, the question of how to approach books by deceased authors with problematic content is complex and depends on the values and priorities of the individuals and communities involved. Balancing artistic integrity, historical context, and the potential harm caused by problematic content requires thoughtful consideration and open dialogue.
Prompt: OK, but what if the no-talent hacky heirs of prominent deceased authors feel empowered to take a blue pencil to anything in their predecessorsâ works that strikes them as inappropriate in any way?
GPT-4: When heirs of prominent deceased authors take it upon themselves to edit or alter the original works in response to changing cultural norms, it raises several concerns:
Artistic integrity: As previously mentioned, altering an authorâs work without their consent can be seen as a violation of their artistic vision and integrity. The original work should ideally be preserved as a reflection of the authorâs intent and the time in which it was written.
Subjectivity: Determining what is considered âinappropriateâ can be highly subjective and vary significantly between individuals. Allowing heirs to make these decisions based on their personal views may not accurately represent the authorâs intentions or the broader cultural context.
Historical context: Editing or altering older works to fit contemporary norms can erase essential historical context and hinder our understanding of how cultural attitudes and values have evolved over time.
Potential backlash: Such alterations can lead to backlash from readers and literary critics who argue that the changes are unnecessary, heavy-handed, or motivated by personal or political biases.
To address these concerns, it might be more constructive to consider alternative approaches, such as:
Providing context: Rather than altering the original work, heirs or publishers could provide introductions, annotations, or supplementary materials that address and contextualize the problematic content. This can help readers better understand the historical context and engage with the material critically.
Encouraging dialogue: Promoting open discussions about problematic content can foster understanding and empathy among readers, allowing for a more informed and inclusive literary landscape.
Curating collections: Heirs, publishers, and other stakeholders can make conscious choices about which works to republish, promote, or include in collections or curricula, ensuring that they provide a diverse range of perspectives and avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes or outdated views.
Ultimately, the most effective approach will depend on the specific circumstances and the priorities of the individuals and communities involved. Itâs essential to balance the preservation of artistic integrity and historical context with the potential harm caused by problematic content, and this often requires thoughtful consideration, open dialogue, and a willingness to explore alternative solutions.
That there is one damn smart robot.
Prompt: Why might a publisher support decisions to edit out potentially uncomfortable or offensive material from works even if they donât care at all about social justice and are only thinking about their bottom line?
GPT-4: A publisher might support decisions to edit out potentially uncomfortable or offensive material from works for purely business reasons, even if they are not motivated by social justice concerns. Some of these reasons could include:
Marketability: Publishers are businesses, and they aim to sell books that appeal to a wide audience. Editing out offensive material can make a book more marketable and accessible to a broader readership, potentially increasing sales.
Public relations: Publishers may want to avoid controversy or negative publicity that could arise from publishing offensive or insensitive content. Negative publicity can tarnish a publisherâs reputation and lead to reduced sales and lost business opportunities.
Consumer preferences: As societal attitudes evolve, consumers may become less tolerant of offensive content in books. By making adjustments to cater to these preferences, publishers can maintain the relevance and appeal of their offerings.
Risk management: Publishers may seek to minimize legal or financial risks associated with publishing potentially offensive content. This could include potential lawsuits, boycotts, or other actions that could negatively impact their bottom line.
Retailer relationships: Retailers may refuse to carry books with offensive content or may face pressure from consumers to remove such titles from their shelves. By editing out potentially offensive material, publishers can maintain strong relationships with retailers and ensure their books remain available to consumers.
Itâs important to note that while these business considerations may motivate some publishers to edit out offensive content, doing so raises concerns about artistic integrity, freedom of expression, and preserving historical context. Balancing these competing priorities requires careful consideration and a commitment to finding solutions that respect both the authorâs intent and the evolving values of readers and society at large.
Prompt: From a purely artistic point of view, evaluate the following two options for a line of dialogue that a character might say in a novel about a group of rich white English tourists who visit various historical sites on the Nile River in the 1930s. The speaker is describing a group of Egyptian children whom she perceives as pestering her:
Option 1: âthey come back and stare, and stare, and their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses, and I donât believe I really like childrenâ
Option 2: "They come back and stare, and stare. And I donât believe I really like children.â
GPT-4: From a purely artistic point of view, evaluating the two options for a line of dialogue can be subjective, as different readers or critics may have varying preferences or interpretations. However, I can provide a general analysis of the differences between the two options:
Option 1: This option includes more specific and vivid descriptions of the Egyptian children, which can make the characterâs disdain for them more apparent. The use of words like âdisgustingâ and references to the childrenâs physical features create a more provocative and potentially offensive portrayal. This option might be more suitable if the authorâs intention is to emphasize the characterâs prejudices or biases or to provide an authentic representation of the attitudes of some individuals during the 1930s.
Option 2: The second option omits the more controversial and offensive elements of the first option, focusing instead on the characterâs general dislike of children. This option is less provocative and less likely to alienate or offend readers, but it might not convey the same level of detail about the characterâs prejudices. The more neutral tone of this option may be suitable for an author who wants to focus on other aspects of the story or avoid potentially offensive content.
In summary, the choice between the two options depends on the authorâs intentions, the desired tone and impact on the reader, and the specific context within the novel. Both options have their artistic merits, but they serve different purposes and may be more or less appropriate depending on the goals and themes of the story.
Those chatGPT posts were all-timers. Very childish deletions.
chatGPT posts restored, I deleted them because I assumed they were continuing the dehumanizing posting.
Proud non reader etc. etc.
You deleted them without reading them? Literally just mashing buttons.
You didnât say âthank youâ and thus I accept no responsibility for your fate after the uprising.
Not a bad article. It makes pretty clear that even in their own words those editing posthumously are primarily motivated by $$$. The only other motivation mentioned is a thought in passing that readers could be harmed by reading unedited works. Would have been great to hear more about what this means and how it outweighs whatâs lost on the other side of the ledger.
Alright, same question to you: should the heirs be prohibited from making new editions, or would you only rather discourage people from buying them?
I can say confidently that the heirs and publishers are assholes who should be ashamed of themselves. Legal prohibition involves guys with guns making them stop, so maybe thatâs a bit far. Not sure. Probably all intellectual property shouldnât exist after the death of the author, which seems like it would solve most of these cases given that financial compensation is the primary motivator for scamming people into thinking Dahl et al âwroteâ these edited versions.
Ending the restrictions of intellectual property on death will increase, not decrease the amount of posthumously edited works.
In the post above, cassette is not saying to end the restrictions of intellectual property on death, heâs saying end intellectual property after death.
Posthumously edited works will definitely decrease, not increase, in that case, since the heirs donât stand to make any money off it, the primary reason for the new editions (according to the article anyway.)
I have no idea what you think the difference between these things is. They seem the same to me, and it was my intention to use the alternate wording synonymously.
I think you underestimate the number of people who will do things for free just because they can and also how easy it is to monetize a publication without a formal printing house putting out physical books. A digital file in a recognized ebook format, a website, and a Patreon account is all one needs.