w5

Recognizing layers/ Making a distinction

Not being able to figure out the sources, and the repetitive reading of the generated texts, I started to see certain characteristics to each of the AI’s.
characteristics that gave them a human side, like lazy or poetic, nostalgic or emotional, not caring or very involved, open or agitated.

Perhaps I'm hoping that by using AI words to conceal some of my words, I'll be more comfortable sharing those stories.
I wondered if the generated stories were logically traceable or if they felt believable, would they even replace the original story? Would the worlds that will be
created expand my existence somehow?

After generating the text my first observation was that “the different AI’s have different
ways in working” even though the three that I’m using are all open-source text
generating AI’s, but the outcomes were noticeably different, in length as well as character

Just by arranging the texts side by side I could see that the AI1 text was significantly longer and more elaborate than the other two, AI2 was short and kind of boring and AI3 was sometimes short, sometimes long but always fragmented.
I thought, what can I see other than this?

The texts, even though they were written in a particular way that felt somehow
artificial, but I found myself enjoying reading all of them over and over again, and their words began to make more sense to me, it was like trying on a new pair of glasses, or a perspective and a way of expression that is new but totally made sense

So I began analysing them, and the first way of analysing was looking into the
most used words and comparing them with the most used words from my original text.
How many of my words did they actually use?
And If the outcome is noticeably different from the input story, what does them using my words signify?

To analyse the texts, I used a web tool called Voyant, which displays the most frequently used words in each document as well as where in the text they are most frequently used.
This was kind of helpful in the sense of starting to examine the text.

Going through the texts and looking at the words reading the created texts, again and again, I started relating to the various ways each AI constructs their stories how they start, how consistent they are, and what subjects might be mentioned more times in different texts regardless of the starting story provided by me

I became addicted to their input and began to wonder about the sources (references) from which they have gotten their texts from. Was the difference between them due to the different sources? Or different algorithms? Or was there a real individuality? A presence that sneaks in through the way of expression, a choice, not a collage.

And so many times I searched the references they sometimes use in the generated text, in an attempt maybe to see the origin of these additions. But all the references were not real ones, no authors, books or articles that could be found about them.

At first, I was curious about what would happen if I ran the texts I'd written, which are a series of memories and dreams, through a text-generating AI. Will the tales be comprehensible? Or will they become even more disoriented as they move between the two dimensions?
Perhaps I'm hoping that the AI will cover some of my words so that I'll be more willing to share them. I wondered whether if the generated stories were logically traceable or if they felt
believable, would they even replace the original story? Would the worlds that will be
created expand my existence through those stories somehow?
After generating the text my first observation was that “the different AI’s have different
ways in working” even though the three AI’s that I’m using are all open-source text
generating AI’s, but the outcomes were noticeably different, the length was different,
Just by arranging the texts side by side, I could see that AI1 text was significantly longer and more elaborate than the other two,
AI2 was short and kind of boring,
AI3 was sometimes short and sometimes long but always fragmented.
I thought, what can I see other than this?
The texts, even though they were written in a particular way that felt somehow
artificial, but I found myself enjoying reading all of them over and over again, and their words began to make more sense to me, It was like trying on a new pair of glasses, or a perspective and a way of expression that is new but totally made sense,
So I thought to analyse them, and the first way of analysing was looking into the
most used words, and comparing them with the most used words from my original text,
How many of my words did they use?

And If they used my words what does that mean? If the outcome is noticeably different from the input story.
To analyse the texts, I used a web tool called Voyant, which could display the most frequently used words in each document as well as where in the text they were most frequently used.
this was kind of helpful in the sense of starting to see more into the text.
I started relating to the various ways each AI constructs their stories, how they start, how consistent they are, and what subjects might be mentioned more times in different texts regardless of the starting story provided by me, when I went through a text and looked at those words, reading the created texts again and again.
I discovered that a mechanical examination (Voyant) is not enough, there are more layers to be revealed and an analysis tool would not do them justice.
I became addicted to their input and began to wonder about the sources (references) from which they have gotten their texts from, was the difference between them due to the different sources? Or different algorithms? Or was there a real individuality?? A presence that sneaks in through the way of expression, a choice not a collage.
And so many times I searched the references they sometimes use in the generated text, In an attempt maybe to see the origin of these additions, but all the references were not real ones, no authors, books or articles that could be found about them.
Not being able to figure out the sources, and the repetitive reading of the generated texts I started to see certain characteristics to each of the AI’s, characteristics that gave them human side, like lazy or poetic, nostalgic or emotional, not caring or very involved, open or agitated, and I wondered would their stories makes more sense for other people if they thought that these stories were written by a person?

Seeing these personality traits of each AI, I realised that a mechanical examination (Voyant) is not enough, there are more layers to be revealed where an analysis tool would not do them justice, also my own reflections on their generated text may not be impartial due to the different relations I have with each of the AI’s that formed throughout the working process.
In an attempt to look at them more objectively

I found some personality tests that I could run the AI’s text through and see what their personality traits are based on the way they write,
although personality type indicators might not be accurate but for the purpose I’m after they would be a good second source in confirming or rejecting a certain personality trait I see in the AI's.

I decided to create interpretations of these personalities, the way I see them.
wondering, would their stories make more sense to other people if they thought these stories were written by a person?