Okay, this is some useful feedback on what a couple people think in general about the idea of AI acting as a frame for human creativity. Thanks for that!

@BertramDitore@lemmy.world , would you consider trying the thing we made and telling us, specifically, what about this you don’t like? I agree that the idea of a “text being queried again” is problematic, but that’s not exactly what we’re suggesting here - the text is, at least arguable, run through the subtext of a great many other texts.

So is there scope for seeing an encounter with the thing we made as a projection of a specific text through all the different texts used to train a generative model? Or is an individual reader’s experience too important and special to ever claim that we can use a statistical “close-and-distant” reading to do something meaningful to something that’s already part of the canon?

Please give it a try! Negative feedback is good, and we’re also sceptical about this, but reference to a specific experience helps.

Oh yeah, that’s frustrating, sorry!

We’ll need to teach Maida to be more aware of the rules…

Thanks for trying it out!

Ah! I thought we caught all of these, but apparently not. The game keeps track of the lies that each character tells, but it’s prone to repeat it into the character’s speech. It does make the game easier when you know exactly when they’re telling a fib!

Did you play more than one game?