You wrote: "ChatGPT did not bring to the work you describe the knowledge,
understanding, reasoning, experience, and skills, of a professional editorial assistant."
No. It brought formatting. Like Clippy used to do. That made it a tool and a useful one: a tool that can help turn the screenplay from a good story to a professional product.
It is … beyond my understanding why you would choose to try and get your argument across by telling me I'm "hallucinating." I'm clearly not. I'm a practitioner of an art using a tool, and — having a bit of analytical background — I'm reflecting on practice. There are not many people who have both the artistic and scholastic background to do that, and fewer still so inclined.
The point here is to WATCH and LISTEN to a practitioner using a new tool. It doesn't matter to me how it works. It matters to me how writers will use it and experience it and engage with it. People need roadmaps and breadcrumbs and observations and direction. Eventually, we will ALL need archives into the evolution of AI's integration into the creation of drama because drama is what teaches and entertains and how that drama is being created matters.
You write: "ChatGPT is another aid to doing this common kind of talking-to-ourself working."
So what? It works differently and does something else. So it's worth understanding that difference. Obviously. Whether it is "intelligent" or not is irrelevant.
You say, Derek ...
"In conclusion: AI is an excellent editorial assistant, and
occasional professional mentor, in formatting screenplays
once you already understand the basics."
No! I don't think ChatGPT is "an excellent editorial
assistant, and occasional professional mentor," but, from your
brief illustration and explanations, it may be, for you, a
useful aid in "... formatting screenplays once you already
understand the basics."
ChatGPT did not bring to the work you describe the knowledge,
understanding, reasoning, experience, and skills, of a
professional editorial assistant. It didn't do this because
ChatGPT doesn't have any of these things, none! It just looks
and feels like it does to you. But this is an hallucination;
an hallucination you have, not ChatGPT. ChatGPT doesn't have
hallucinations. It uses a massive statistical model to
generate stuff that is close, but not necessarily correct or
truthful, to forms and patterns in the [ginormous amount of]
data it is programmed with in its construction.
What I think really happened here is that you used ChatGPT,
which can generate sufficiently good screenplay formatting in
your judgement, as a kind of mirror which reflects back to you
in certain [strangely] changed and distorted ways what you
present to it. And it proved to be useful to you in what you
were doing because it can make changes and distortions in how
it reflects things back to you of a kind you can't [easily]
do, but which directly aid you in doing what you're trying to
do, and, in particular, which aid your thinking and reasoning
as you do it.
We use other common [computational] tools like this; a
Spreadsheet App, for example. We use a Spreadsheet App to
tabulate some data in a neat and tidy and visually accessible
way, to see things in our data, which results in us changing
our tabulation and presentation, allowing us see other things.
And we can get this App to do things for us we can't do, or
which would be difficult for us to do, like calculate some
useful statistics on the tabulated data, and to make graphical
presentations of these statistics, again, helping us to see
and understand more about the data we have tabulated. It's a
conversation with ourself, aided by -- indeed, made possible
by -- the Spreadsheet App. We've been doing this kind of
cognitive working for thousands of years, in writing, in
drawings and sketching, in making, in improvising, in playing.
They all aid us in sustaining useful and effective
conversations with ourselves as we work out how to do
something. ChatGPT is another aid to doing this common kind
of talking-to-ourself working.
So, I would say, in working on your screenplay script you
usefully, and successfully, in your judgement, used ChatGPT to
have a useful thought and reasoning provoking conversation
with yourself on what you were doing, as you worked on and
formatted your script. It's good stuff. ChatGPT was
important in making this useful talking-to-yourself work
happen, but the only intelligence present in all this, of any
kind, was yours. There's none in ChatGPT. To think there is
is to fool ourselves, and to then misrepresent to others what
ChatGPT is and does.
-- Tim
You wrote: "ChatGPT did not bring to the work you describe the knowledge,
understanding, reasoning, experience, and skills, of a professional editorial assistant."
No. It brought formatting. Like Clippy used to do. That made it a tool and a useful one: a tool that can help turn the screenplay from a good story to a professional product.
It is … beyond my understanding why you would choose to try and get your argument across by telling me I'm "hallucinating." I'm clearly not. I'm a practitioner of an art using a tool, and — having a bit of analytical background — I'm reflecting on practice. There are not many people who have both the artistic and scholastic background to do that, and fewer still so inclined.
The point here is to WATCH and LISTEN to a practitioner using a new tool. It doesn't matter to me how it works. It matters to me how writers will use it and experience it and engage with it. People need roadmaps and breadcrumbs and observations and direction. Eventually, we will ALL need archives into the evolution of AI's integration into the creation of drama because drama is what teaches and entertains and how that drama is being created matters.
You write: "ChatGPT is another aid to doing this common kind of talking-to-ourself working."
So what? It works differently and does something else. So it's worth understanding that difference. Obviously. Whether it is "intelligent" or not is irrelevant.