4 ms·

There is an Asimov story called "Someday" in which a toy computer called a Bard generates random fairy tales and reads them to children. In the story two child

There is an Asimov story called "Someday" in which a toy computer called a Bard generates random fairy tales and reads them to children. In the story two children try to hack their Bard, to make it tell more interesting modern stories, by feeding it a new vocabulary of modern words. In the end, it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I really feel like that story embodies today's AI generated stories. I've tried to get ChatGPT to generate original fairy tales and whatever plot prompt I give it, it spits out what is essentially the same dull story every time. I always enjoy spotting a good anachronism in a sci-fi story (societies with space travel but still use typewriters), but this is a case of really spot on prediction.

Agraillo 1y ago
> I've tried to get ChatGPT to generate original fairy tales and whatever plot prompt I give it, it spits out what is essentially the same dull story every time. Not a universal solution, but a working method to get at least sometimes interesting results. You should use it as a co-authoring tool by following these hints: treat this as a dialogue ("let’s create interactively, you and me…", "create a first sentence of a fictional story", ...), where you act like a semaphore for the continuation—judging the current output and either correcting it or suggesting the next step (which can be brief and expanded later by the LLM). Finally, try to suggest unexpected constraints. This can be effective because when your constraint contains a set of words rarely seen together in training data, the output becomes somewhat random but still at least partially grounded in reality. An example from one of my old conversations with Llama 3.1: > User: Create a sentence from a fictional book containing the words crazy, cowboy, and gadget. > Llama: In the wild west town of Crazy Horse, a notorious cowboy named Buckshot Bob unveiled his latest gadget — a mechanical horse that could gallop at breakneck speed.
thenoblesunfish 1y ago
Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called that?
- godelski 1y ago
  I don't know if anyone has officially said so but there was a public statement about it being chosen as a reference to story telling (Celtic language). So could be for similar reasons or could be a reference. Not surprising considering how famous the story is and how famous Asimov is. But maybe someone else knows more definitively.
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    Celtic? The name "Gemini" is much, much, much better known from Greek myth, if it occurs in Celtic culture at all...
    - strken 1y ago
      Gemini was originally called Bard. That's what thenoblesunfish was asking about: the original name, not the new one.
    - godelski 1y ago
      Here, I'll rephrase thenoblesunfish for clarity, because you seem to have misread > Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called [Bard]? "That" == "Bard". They weren't referring to Gemini, which is why there's that whole thing in parentheses stating it's *now* called Gemini From Wiki | The technology was developed under the codename "Atlas", with the name "Bard" in reference to the Celtic term for a storyteller and chosen to "reflect the creative nature of the algorithm underneath".
      - andrewflnr 1y ago
        Ah.
godelski 1y ago
> it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I think you're leaving out the best part! I don't want to spoil it, it's a short story. Classic trope, but still. Story here[0] On another note, as an avid SciFi lover I have always found it interesting that in books, movies, and shows there have been many machines that talk and do complex tasks yet no one ever thought they were alive. Just take Star Trek. The simulations in the Holodeck are highly realistic and intended to mimic real humans. Or even the computer is able to speak and write code as requested. Far more advanced than our systems today. There's even that famous episode in TNG with Data where they are questioning if he is actually alive or not. Not such an easy thing but yet every viewer probably thought he was and recognized the difference between him and the computer and Holodeck[1]. Though my favorite version of that question is in Asimov's The Positronic Man (basis of the movie Bicentennial Man and yes, Asimov is why Data has a Positronic brain). These are fiction, but I find this so interesting. I feel like our LLMs look much more like the computer from Star Trek than the Holograms let alone Data. Yet, I think there's a lot of disagreement about the level of intelligence of these systems and it makes me wonder why someone would say the computer in Star Trek isn't intelligent but the LLM is (I'm sure there's retconning too). [0] https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/sffaudio-usa/mp3s/SomedayByIsaacAsimov.pdf https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/sffaudio-usa/mp3s/Someda... [1] Well there is Voyager. And that episode from TNG. But go read [0] ;)
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  Because it's fiction and the Author is God. In Star Trek, the computer is framed as an appliance. It's the ship's operating system. The characters treat it like a highly advanced Alexa. They issue commands ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot"), ask for information, and expect a transactional response. No one ever asks the computer, "How are you feeling today?" because the narrative has established it doesn't have feelings. It's a tool, and we, the audience, accept this premise. In contrast, the entire point of Data's character is to question the line between machine and person. The episode you mentioned is a courtroom drama specifically designed to force the characters (and the audience) to see him as a sentient being with rights. His "positronic brain" is the magical Asimovian hand-waving that signals to the audience: "This one is different. Pay attention." 'The Author' could have easily positioned the computer or the holodeck in a similar manner and people would agree it was sentient. Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given. It's one thing to read a fictional story about a fictional technology and assume the position and framing the God is pushing you to, it's another thing entirely to have the technology in your hands and play around with it.

Agraillo 1y ago

> I've tried to get ChatGPT to generate original fairy tales and whatever plot prompt I give it, it spits out what is essentially the same dull story every time. Not a universal solution, but a working method to get at least sometimes interesting results. You should use it as a co-authoring tool by following these hints: treat this as a dialogue ("let’s create interactively, you and me…", "create a first sentence of a fictional story", ...), where you act like a semaphore for the continuation—judging the current output and either correcting it or suggesting the next step (which can be brief and expanded later by the LLM). Finally, try to suggest unexpected constraints. This can be effective because when your constraint contains a set of words rarely seen together in training data, the output becomes somewhat random but still at least partially grounded in reality. An example from one of my old conversations with Llama 3.1: > User: Create a sentence from a fictional book containing the words crazy, cowboy, and gadget. > Llama: In the wild west town of Crazy Horse, a notorious cowboy named Buckshot Bob unveiled his latest gadget — a mechanical horse that could gallop at breakneck speed.

thenoblesunfish 1y ago

Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called that?

godelski 1y ago
I don't know if anyone has officially said so but there was a public statement about it being chosen as a reference to story telling (Celtic language). So could be for similar reasons or could be a reference. Not surprising considering how famous the story is and how famous Asimov is. But maybe someone else knows more definitively.
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  Celtic? The name "Gemini" is much, much, much better known from Greek myth, if it occurs in Celtic culture at all...
  - strken 1y ago
    Gemini was originally called Bard. That's what thenoblesunfish was asking about: the original name, not the new one.
  - godelski 1y ago
    Here, I'll rephrase thenoblesunfish for clarity, because you seem to have misread > Is this why the Google product (now just called Gemini) was called [Bard]? "That" == "Bard". They weren't referring to Gemini, which is why there's that whole thing in parentheses stating it's *now* called Gemini From Wiki | The technology was developed under the codename "Atlas", with the name "Bard" in reference to the Celtic term for a storyteller and chosen to "reflect the creative nature of the algorithm underneath".
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      Ah.

godelski 1y ago

> it just generates the same old fairy tale plots using the new words it has learned. I think you're leaving out the best part! I don't want to spoil it, it's a short story. Classic trope, but still. Story here[0] On another note, as an avid SciFi lover I have always found it interesting that in books, movies, and shows there have been many machines that talk and do complex tasks yet no one ever thought they were alive. Just take Star Trek. The simulations in the Holodeck are highly realistic and intended to mimic real humans. Or even the computer is able to speak and write code as requested. Far more advanced than our systems today. There's even that famous episode in TNG with Data where they are questioning if he is actually alive or not. Not such an easy thing but yet every viewer probably thought he was and recognized the difference between him and the computer and Holodeck[1]. Though my favorite version of that question is in Asimov's The Positronic Man (basis of the movie Bicentennial Man and yes, Asimov is why Data has a Positronic brain). These are fiction, but I find this so interesting. I feel like our LLMs look much more like the computer from Star Trek than the Holograms let alone Data. Yet, I think there's a lot of disagreement about the level of intelligence of these systems and it makes me wonder why someone would say the computer in Star Trek isn't intelligent but the LLM is (I'm sure there's retconning too). [0] https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/sffaudio-usa/mp3s/SomedayByIsaacAsimov.pdf https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/sffaudio-usa/mp3s/Someda... [1] Well there is Voyager. And that episode from TNG. But go read [0] ;)

famouswaffles 1y ago
Because it's fiction and the Author is God. In Star Trek, the computer is framed as an appliance. It's the ship's operating system. The characters treat it like a highly advanced Alexa. They issue commands ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot"), ask for information, and expect a transactional response. No one ever asks the computer, "How are you feeling today?" because the narrative has established it doesn't have feelings. It's a tool, and we, the audience, accept this premise. In contrast, the entire point of Data's character is to question the line between machine and person. The episode you mentioned is a courtroom drama specifically designed to force the characters (and the audience) to see him as a sentient being with rights. His "positronic brain" is the magical Asimovian hand-waving that signals to the audience: "This one is different. Pay attention." 'The Author' could have easily positioned the computer or the holodeck in a similar manner and people would agree it was sentient. Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given. It's one thing to read a fictional story about a fictional technology and assume the position and framing the God is pushing you to, it's another thing entirely to have the technology in your hands and play around with it.