Exploring A.I.'s Role in Literature

I'll assume the reader has had those moments when some sort of stock has to be taken of oneself, to decide whether or not we're crazy.  I'm having one of those moments now... I'm on the verge of doing something completely insane, or completely genius.  And there's no way to way which.

Yesterday, with time on my hands and not much motivation to work on any ongoing project, I decided to address a science fiction novel that's been rattling around in my head these last four years.  The premise, which has nothing whatsoever to do with D&D, is as follows:

Essentially, a social transformation has taken place throughout the world due to a drug called "phina," and sometimes "saraphina," which blocks those chemicals that the male's biology requires in order for him to act aggressively or even becomes angry. It has almost no other repercussions, except that after a period of ten months of being on the drug, the male becomes apt to follow instructions when they are given to him --but this is not a form of mind control, rather it is simply that the male perceives that doing so is probably for the best. It hasn't been demonstrated that this isn't just the male's coming to accept that, because he can't argue or fight back, he just becomes more willing to accept the directions of a person who can be forthright.

The drug has zero effects on women. It is not a natural substance, but was first made by a subversive corporation working on behalf of women's rights and freedoms. Initially, the drug was distributed clandestinely and illegally on the street. The drug is highly addictive, such that the men once on the drug, deeply want to locate and take the drug again ... though it has no recognisable recreational properties of any kind. It is not a hallucinogenic, it does not make the user "high," or provide any sense of special empowerment or delight; at most, it is gently calming, mostly because the male feels no compulsion to exhibit either aggressiveness or anger.

I typed this into chat, which initiated a four-hour discussion in which the implications of the above was addressed, followed by a discussion of the main two characters around which the book would revolve.  The professions and story arc of the characters' backgrounds followed, as well as how this would affect the structure of the book.  The plot takes place in the present, but the two characters experience only a single day in real time; the remainder of the story is a series of self-reflections on how each character progressed from the way things used to be, that is, "normal", to the way they are now, which is a very, very different world.  Themes were discussed, the incomes of the characters, their relationship with each other (they're married) and how that has evolved to the present.

The book's outline was sketched out, what would happen to the characters on that day, where the tension would originate and ultimately how the book would build to a dilemma that would be more or less impossible to solve for the two characters, but one more than the other.  The dilemma is suitably insolvable, gut wrenching and I think well worth the building of a novel in order to reach.  All through this, the material suggested was examined and discussed and re-assessed where needed.

I settled on character names, then solved the problem of the book's title.  In all this, the structure of the first chapter was discussed, then finally the first sentence of the book went back and forth.  I then proceeded to write the opening of the book, the first 1,200 words or so, letting chat write passages and then editing and rewriting my own lines, adding sections as I saw fit, slowly progressing the opening of the book in the manner I wanted.  Whereupon, I stepped back, took a breather and felt fairly good about having gotten the book on a footing where it could, conceivably, be written in full.  

I decided to save the conversation with chat in its entirety, as I would wish to review the conversations, since I'd expect to forget much of the material.  I saved it as notes, and got a little bit of a shock.

The conversation is 38,000 words.

That is longer than the Dungeon's Front Door; in the same format, it would be 160 pages, not counting additional title pages, preface, etc.

The reader should easily be able to figure what my thinking is now.

This is a pulp-sized book of a kind I've never seen before, though chatGPT tells me that it's been done before.  Quote, "These books are typically experimental in nature, reflecting on the interaction between human and machine, and sometimes include commentary or analysis on the AI's responses. Some authors use these conversations to delve into specific themes, while others might frame the dialogue as a form of collaborative storytelling."

And this would be the most beneficial element of the conversation, as it outlines ways to approach chat with a subject in mind, it demonstrates how an individual with a clear idea of what the end result ought to be, while showing an ability to recognise bad writing that allows for correction and the production of a much better sort of writing.  It potentially moves the dialogue away from expecting chat to write the Bible by saying, "Chat, write the Bible," to showing how each sentence and paragraph can be tossed back and forth until an end product results that satisfies the capacity of the writer to recognise good from bad.

More to the point, the argument I and others have been making, is that if you're not a good writer to start with, if you're not willing to parse every word and identify precisely why it should and shouldn't be there, then depending on chat to write anything is going to be a reflection of one's own inability to write.  But IF the writer can recognise the difference between good and bad, then chat represents the possibility of things being proposed that a writer can leap on and see has real potential, even if that's been randomly generated.  Hell, most of my thoughts are "randomly generated" from a lifetime of noticing things that happen to happen in the places I happen to be, or which someone happens to say when we happen to be talking to each other.

I'm well aware of what the pushback would be.  Likely, I'd be accused of chat writing the book and not me, which I'm fine with, as the book itself is evidence to the contrary.  Very likely, for anyone who delved far enough into the book to really identify the premise, the castrating/emasculating nature of the book's direction wouldn't make a lot of men of the MTGOW type very happy.  For this is the trajectory of the male's experience, including elements of the book that directly suppose a feminist fascist state... which isn't going to make a lot of feminists happy either, given that they usually support an ideal where they're in control, but they're definitely not, and anyway it would all be really nurturing.

At least, there's absolutely no sex in the book.

Ultimately, if it "took off," it certainly would be misunderstood by nearly everyone.  The premise definitely drifts into Starship Troopers/The Fountainhead territory, where everyone has a hateful opinion but, from the substance of their arguments, never seem to have read the book.

C'est la vie.  I really have no reason not to publish it, except, you know, it might convince everyone in the world that I'm not a serious writer.  But, you know... since hardly no one knows my name now, there's always the possibility that they might hate me enough to overcome that disability.

Posing the concept here as the last stop before diving in.  So people can put up their hands and ask, "What the...?"  I have bounced this off my friends and my daughter today, so I'm not entering into this without having already obtained sound advice.