Hey! Why would anyone read something that nobody actually wrote?!
That question comes up often when people talk about artificial intelligence. When a language model produces a company memo or a text message, you must acknowledge that no self-aware person wrote it. That’s true no matter how much prompting was involved. Nobody is writing these things. So, why even read something written by nobody? At first, that seems like a solid argument against taking such writing seriously. After thinking about it, I don’t agree, though.
I find these chatbots mildly interesting. I started wondering why that was, and why other people did too. The reasons probably vary. Some might say that it’s all a symptom of unhealthy habits, that reading AI output is a waste of time. But it’s hard to make that judgment fairly. Each situation is different. In the majority of cases, the AI is merely entertainment. We expect less and get (mostly) what we expect.
Every artificial voice lacks something that feels essential. When I read text I know came from a machine, I know it will feel detached. If something looks like it was churned out by a marketing team or venture-backed startup, I lose interest immediately. Yet I’ll read AI-generated character dialogue with the same half-curious attention someone might give a cheap novel. It’s silly, but it holds attention.
Prompting itself takes a kind of narrative instinct. It’s similar, in a loose way, to how roleplay communities build shared stories. The process is smaller in scope, but the resemblance is there. The presence of the robots, and the sheer complexity of it, makes it difficult to consider the process art, though.
It’s incredibly important to remember that nobody really writes these messages. Still, they’re interesting to read sometimes, and the process keeps me engaged with computer science. Maybe that’s why the program is called SillyTavern? It’s a bit of a diversion. Many other distractions exist, and most don’t involve Markov chains. Technology keeps shifting, though, and I’m curious about it.
I often read these messages precisely because no one wrote them. The absence of an author makes them intriguing. Often the results are dull or messy. Sometimes they’re overly shaped by marketing. I guess that’s worth studying too. With careful prompting, you can produce text that vaguely implies a conversation.
It’s only worth reading, though, if you remember the nature of LLMs, and that nobody actually wrote the message. It can still be oddly charming. Maybe that’s the point, in an eerie sort of way…