What does AI have to do with literature? Don’t get me wrong it’s incredibly interesting and somehow and I haven’t stopped thinking about it, but where’s the link to literature?
Following our seminar on AI and Transhumanism, I found myself reading a paper by Angus Fletcher who has dual degrees in neuroscience and literature. Fletcher says that his paper shows ‘proof’ that a computer cannot and will never be able to function the way human beings do. His main argument is that although the brain does function using logic, it mainly functions using narrative, which is causal reasoning.
He comes to this ‘highly controversial’ conclusion after realising that by breaking down literature you can see that the essence of narrative is causal. However, a CPU which runs on Arithmetic Logic Units is not able to perform any causal functions. i.e. it cannot process cause and effect. To bypass this limitation it uses correlation to learn from patterns and output results which mimic human thought.
This paper has received a lot of backlash, in fact, he then released a follow-up study to his initial paper explaining it in more detail and responding to any criticism he received. At some point in time, I got lost in the neurological and computer science talk but overall I felt that there was some truth to what Fletcher was saying.
My first reaction to reading this study was ‘Phew! We’re safe.’
Why do I feel so relieved that a computer will never be able to think like me? This fear that I might be bettered than a robot is an idea which deserves to be deconstructed.
Human beings have always considered themselves to be the top dog (analysing theological rhetoric is one way of really showing this). But now all of a sudden AI has come along and it seems to be challenging the one thing we pride ourselves on being the best at: thinking.
I feel scared but also hostile towards AI: ‘Who is it/he/she to think it can think better than me?!?!’
Last week I found myself arguing with ChatGPT for 45 minutes as it was not able to produce a Petrarchan sonnet using the correct form; the contents of the poem also left much to be desired. I was offended that it thought it could function the way I do. After countless attempts of trying to explain what it did wrong, I just gave up and declared that a VICTORY FOR HUMANITY!
Just take a second and reflect on the way I acted: Why did I feel attacked? Have I been reading too much Max More? Do we all think this way? What does this say about me?
Unlike More’s anthropocentric and elitist transhumanist manifesto, I believe that the rise of AI has the opportunity to humble us rather than be used as a way to conquer the natural world. In reference to the Uncanny Valley, AI seems to act so similarly to us that we feel uncomfortable and threatened by it. Can AI be used to improve our quality of life? – most definitely, but let’s make sure it doesn’t destroy other lives in the process.
I’m sorry for getting mad at you ChapGPT.
Back to my initial question… what does all this have to do with literature?
works cited
Fletcher, Angus. “Why Computers Will Never Read (or Write) Literature: A Logical Proof and a Narrative.” Narrative, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2021.0000. Accessed 8 Mar. 2021.
More, Max, and Natasha Vita-More. The Transhumanist Reader : Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. Wiley-Blackwell, 4, 2015.
Mori, Masahiro, et al. “The Uncanny Valley.” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 19, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 98–100, https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.2192811.
“RadicalFutures | Professor Angus Fletcher: The Brain and Narratives, the Limits of AI.” Www.youtube.com, 22 Feb. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn0fYiTohp8. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023.