This is rude critique. You may be right, but the same can be said without expressing impingement on anothers’ agency. Simply express what effect the writing had on your own agency. Ideally, also express something about what would have changed your review.
I don’t know what your reference to “agency” means, but my critique was certainly blunt.
What would have changed my review? Well, if these stories had not been written, I would not have commented on them. Short of that, I can only gesture at the leaden prose, the telling without ever showing, the excessive adjectives and adverbs, the concluding paragraph of each one hammering on the intended moral, and the generally porridgey feeling. I expect that for these reasons any editor dealing with such a story would instantly reject it with no more than a form letter.
Of course, these are standard faults of all of GPT’s prose. GPT writes stories the same way it writes non-fiction: like a high-school essay. Nowadays that instantly identifies it as such, giving further reason to reject it and any future submission from the same person. That is the policy of the first magazine whose author guidelines I just looked up (“Analog”): “We will not consider any submissions written, developed, or assisted by [AI] tools. Attempting to submit these works may result in being banned from submitting works in the future.”
The current state of the art in GPTs is that its fiction is trash, its factual writing is pedestrian, unreliable, and badly sourced (if at all), its conversation is on the level of an NPC (which is literally what it is), and its poetry is doggerel.
ETA: I wonder if the acronym NPC (Non-Player Character) should receive a new expansion: Non-Person Character.
ETA2: I have not voted on the post (which currently stands at −6), because as I said earlier, I do not know what the writer’s intention for it was.
This is rude critique. You may be right, but the same can be said without expressing impingement on anothers’ agency. Simply express what effect the writing had on your own agency. Ideally, also express something about what would have changed your review.
I don’t know what your reference to “agency” means, but my critique was certainly blunt.
What would have changed my review? Well, if these stories had not been written, I would not have commented on them. Short of that, I can only gesture at the leaden prose, the telling without ever showing, the excessive adjectives and adverbs, the concluding paragraph of each one hammering on the intended moral, and the generally porridgey feeling. I expect that for these reasons any editor dealing with such a story would instantly reject it with no more than a form letter.
Of course, these are standard faults of all of GPT’s prose. GPT writes stories the same way it writes non-fiction: like a high-school essay. Nowadays that instantly identifies it as such, giving further reason to reject it and any future submission from the same person. That is the policy of the first magazine whose author guidelines I just looked up (“Analog”): “We will not consider any submissions written, developed, or assisted by [AI] tools. Attempting to submit these works may result in being banned from submitting works in the future.”
The current state of the art in GPTs is that its fiction is trash, its factual writing is pedestrian, unreliable, and badly sourced (if at all), its conversation is on the level of an NPC (which is literally what it is), and its poetry is doggerel.
ETA: I wonder if the acronym NPC (Non-Player Character) should receive a new expansion: Non-Person Character.
ETA2: I have not voted on the post (which currently stands at −6), because as I said earlier, I do not know what the writer’s intention for it was.