Comments on: Rhetorical Velocity, Remixing, & AI

By: Missalot

Missalot — Sat, 14 Sep 2024 03:03:14 +0000

I agree with you fully here, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate for just a little bit, pin on my fake lawyer’s badge and see what argument I can craft. I’m not necessarily sure it will be a good one as I don’t believe in this cause, but it’ll be a fun challenge.

I will not argue on the point that AI lacks intentionality and passion. To argue otherwise is not only foolish but also ridiculous. Generative large language models cannot think. However, there *can* be an argument for the idea that AI could replicate it. If everything that AI does is a remix of stuff that people made with intentionality and passion, would that pass on to the stuff that AI has formulated? It’s pulling references like someone would who was writing an essay. Does that make it unique from a plagiarism machine, or is it’s lack of humanity the key factor in making it a plagiarism machine.

By: sunburned cowgirl

sunburned cowgirl — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:53:15 +0000

I loved this take on remixing with AI versus with humans. First things first, I loved the way you defined rhetorical velocity as, “purposeful writing that thinks about what other people could do with your work once it’s out there.” I think that is a very powerful way to put this method of writing. In regard to remixing with AI versus with humans, I think you are absolutely correct in the matter of being intentional. As you stated, most AI generators spit out the most likely of answers, never going off the train of thought it thinks humans have, but an actual human would think of all possibilities (even the unlikely ones). I think this is where you get into your main point of intentionality. Humans are extremely intentional with the ways they write and compose their work, which can lead them to abstract answers. On the flip side, AI can only truly give you the answers it thinks you want. In other words, AI is confined to a box of “correct” answers and cannot think of the potential “wrong” answers. AI cannot, in a literal sense, think outside the box, or be intentional with their responses. This makes for an interesting point of discussion, which I think you did a beautiful job introducing.

By: e.g.lane

e.g.lane — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:14:46 +0000

You are right on about AI. I especially love your point about intentionality!

By: e.g.lane

e.g.lane — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:10:48 +0000

I really enjoyed Ridolfo and Devoss’ article, but I’m not sure if I can get on board with the notion of writing for recomposition. I feel as if it could take away from the writing process. I’d rather focus more on what I’m producing rather than be worried about how others may use/repurpose it after I’m done. To me, that adds another layer of tension that I’d rather not be there. It is going to be reused or inspire no matter what. That in and of itself is beautiful.