The AI freak-out continues in Writerworld (and Musicworld and Screenworld, etc.), but this piece in Wired gave me some reason to hope it won’t all be terrible.
Laura Kipnis’s article explores her experience as a participant in Rebind, an experimental AI-driven ‘reading companion platform’. Rebind is supposed to help people engage with classic literature by embedding commentary from notable authors, called "Rebinders," into texts. But it’s not just footnotes. Being AI, the Rebinder will talk back to you, allowing readers to interact with these ‘tutors’ as they read.
It would be like me taking you through Felafel, one roomie at a time. Kipnis was asked to do Romeo and Juliet, which both amused her and initially led her to think the whole thing was a giant scam.
"My role, the email explained, would involve recording original commentary on a “great book”—Clancy suggested Romeo and Juliet, though it could be any classic in the public domain. This commentary would somehow be implanted in the text and made interactive: Readers would be able to ask questions and AI-me would engage in an “ongoing conversation” with them about the book. We’d be reading buddies. Proposing me for Romeo and Juliet did strike me as subversively funny—my “expertise” on romantic tragedy consists of having once written a somewhat controversial anti-marriage polemic titled Against Love. I’ve also written, a bit ironically, about the muddle of sexual consent codes, which I supposed could prove relevant. Juliet was, after all, only 13. These days, Romeo (probably around 16—we’re not precisely told) would risk being called a predator."
Kipnis, skeptical of the project due to its mysterious origins and the involvement of Clancy, a somewhat notorious figure in the world of literature, and a private, wealthy backer named John Dubuque, ultimately agreed to contribute by providing her take on R&J and she explains in the piece what happened next.
Bottom line. It could be cool. It could be a crock. It could turn into a data-harvesting nightmare. But there are some incredible authors attached to it now, and the piece is worth reading anyway just for the story of Dubuque, a plumbing supplies billionaire who decided to spend his fortune on learning how to read literature and then helping others to do the same.
"Bottom line. It could be cool. It could be a crock. It could turn into a data-harvesting nightmare" though this could be a description applied to every AI (spicy clippy) add on from now on.
woah - this has made me do a bit of thinking about the way i read books. I think i need to ruminate a bit further on it. My first reaction was horror, "dont people read books by themselves?" (maybe using the dictionary every now and again) and what about cultural biases? How does this work? Are you reading a book and then you chat through some device somewhere. Do you do it on a second read? Do you stop to ask what some character is a metaphor for and does that ruin the process? Does it improve the way we read that we dont work it out for ourselves and get tutored instead, cutting out the middle man of using your brain? Isn't the whole point of books to be entertained or be left up to interpret yourself and inspire thinking or fantasy and then (maybe) discuss later with friends and what happens if your friends are replaced by a celebrity AI? Is there a loss of organic thinking in this, is there even a difference with AI anymore? Or is it just a flashy book club for one? This is too heavy for a Monday!
"Bottom line. It could be cool. It could be a crock. It could turn into a data-harvesting nightmare" though this could be a description applied to every AI (spicy clippy) add on from now on.
woah - this has made me do a bit of thinking about the way i read books. I think i need to ruminate a bit further on it. My first reaction was horror, "dont people read books by themselves?" (maybe using the dictionary every now and again) and what about cultural biases? How does this work? Are you reading a book and then you chat through some device somewhere. Do you do it on a second read? Do you stop to ask what some character is a metaphor for and does that ruin the process? Does it improve the way we read that we dont work it out for ourselves and get tutored instead, cutting out the middle man of using your brain? Isn't the whole point of books to be entertained or be left up to interpret yourself and inspire thinking or fantasy and then (maybe) discuss later with friends and what happens if your friends are replaced by a celebrity AI? Is there a loss of organic thinking in this, is there even a difference with AI anymore? Or is it just a flashy book club for one? This is too heavy for a Monday!