I just asked get ChatGPT a question about use of language in a specific book (China Miéville's Kraken). It gave a plausible answer but used a common English word ('knackering') instead of the word 'knacking' that is actually used (the word 'knackering' isn't in the text). I then asked it to give me a quote using 'knackering' and it gave me a quote with the word 'knacking'. I asked it to put the quote into Harvard reference style which it did, but didn't provide a page number, which it said I'd have to look up myself.
I think relying on ChatGPT for an essay would be fairly frustrating, and if you used ChatGPT to develop your thesis, you could very quickly get a generic plagiaristic answer (based on the quotes everyone else used) rather than one than that captured your own response to the text, and which contained factual errors.
[Edit] It also said that "gods inhabiting USB sticks are presented matter-of-factly" in Kraken which is false (there are no mentions of USB). When I asked it for a quote to support its assertion, it replied "While the novel doesn't explicitly depict gods inhabiting USB sticks..."
Indeed. I'm doing a close reading of Kraken and have been amazed at the number of 'weird' entities and plot events that Miéville introduces [0]. It would be very easy to hallucinate a few more.
There are more than 100 passages in Kraken where Miéville names people, places and events that occur in other media or culture. For example, in a list of people associated with submarine technology, he throws in the name of the underwater stuntman [1] who played the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Again, it would be easy to hallucinate additional content.
[0] For example, a secondary character who was originally an ancient Egyptian burial slave-statue who went on strike in the afterlife, and in modern London is now the trade-union convenor for the Union of Magicked Assistants.
[1] Ricou Browning, if anyone is interested.
Try it for a text that is in the training data, or the public internet, or can be put into the context window - then it might help.
My point was that I would be very hesitant to rely on ChatGPT as an assistant in a real literature task. Many of the texts on my Eng Lit course are in copyright, as is all of the module material (the OU's course-specific textbooks). The hallucinations are a real show-stopper.
Give me a break, it's a hammer. This is a perfectly normal "use" of ChatGPT and a good example of how a literature student may opt to try and use AI to make their work easier in some way. It also conveniently demonstrates some of the shortcomings of using a LLM for this sort of task. No need to call them a dumbass.
I don’t think you’d do well in 400-level classes this way. English Lit isn’t as much of a joke as STEM students make it out to be[1]: it gets a lot harder than the bullshit 101/201 courses everyone is required to take. You’re supposed to try to be original in your analysis, and it has to be rigorously proven within the text itself.
Probably as a grad student you’d start arguing against other critics points, but not undergrad. I think that would hold for almost all schools because no one at that level in that field wants to hear from someone who doesn’t know how to analyze a text in the first place. It’d be like a high school student trying to tell you about software (or systems, network, data, etc.) engineering.
For similar reasons, AI summarizations for past contributions wouldn't work, either. If you’re arguing someone else’s analysis is wrong, you’re going to need to read and understand the whole thing. And if you’re just copying from AI, you’ll have a hard time defending your position.
Although, man, if you can understand the subtext of a book from listening to an audiobook *while gaming*, AND you have time to watch all the online lectures about a book!? I need to talk to you about time management, my friend!
1 - I have been involved in so many forums and subreddits where people try to analyze books, comics, TV, or movies. Based on what I have seen come out of people there —- most of you MFers couldn’t pass 300-level classes.
People can’t analyze literature for shit, and I think it’s because everyone gets such a negative perception of literary analysis because high school and required college classes are junk. It’s actually really hard to read five novels in month, keep track of all the characters and plots and themes and so on, and understand all of them well enough to write a coherent argument. I saw so many kids in my major crying about their GPA getting tanked because they weren’t ready for rigorous analysis. FWIW, I was 25 as a Junior (third year of uni, in the US), and had spent the last few years reading exercise physiology papers while bored at work. Seeing real science changed my life, and I wanted to apply their level of rigor to my own analysis of any kind. It’s why I’m good at my job now, tbh.
AI should also be able to help you gather evidence from the reference texts, because it can exercise reasonable judgement without any constraint on patience or access or time. Consider the recent social media sensation about the lady who got a PhD for analysing how smell factors into the fates of literary characters. AI can quickly find thousands of examples, and then filter them as desired.
You could even have the AI write essays for you - “analyse this novel through the lens of ____ theory” - where no literary criticism already exists to review. You could have it generate any number of such essays, applying theories/frameworks you might not even know, but want to understand better.
I think it’s possible to “read” an audiobook while doing something monotonous like walking, driving, or, yes, gaming. The lectures you probably have to treat like podcasts and just play them in the background and pick up some ideas.
QFT. It's like the Sparknotes scenario I outlined in my post above - what you get from this level of engagement isn't insight, least of all a debatable position, it's just a loosely cohesive bunch of table-quiz facts.
//People can’t analyze literature for shit, and I think it’s because everyone gets such a negative perception of literary analysis because high school and required college classes are junk.
Because most of what is being examined is passive/active voicings, brain-dead symbolism, and ham-fisted and dated metaphors as literary vehicles.
Even at University level there should be an emphasis on a 101 level course hammering home the importance of Critical Theory in Literary Criticism as a framework and approach for disseminating texts. Without a basic understanding of the cultural, historical, and ideological dimensions under which a text was conceived and published, you haven't a hope of climbing the foothills of Beckett, Camus, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Eliot, Joyce, Kafka, Shaw...
I can't tell if you're serious or not, but this would be like saying you've "watched" a movie because you had it on your second monitor while you were playing counter strike. There's a fundamental difference in hearing a book read to you and actually listening and engaging with the audio on a meaningful level. The latter requires focus, and you're not going to be able to do that if you're gaming away at the same time.
Put another way, why would someone who presumably loves reading bother studying literature if they don't actually care enough to pay attention to the books they supposedly loved?
The reason to do this is that just sitting in a chair ploughing through books gets very unappealing after a while. And there’s a lot of books to get through.
I think a lot of people, including, I presume, most who willingly choose to study literature, enjoy reading as an activity unto itself and so don't feel the need to add additional distractions. Not everybody finds sitting down and "ploughing through" (how disdainful a phrase!) a book unappealing.
The reading (listening) of course is not “in the background”. Maybe sometimes you’re distracted and have to skip back 30s and re-listen. Fine. If the game is too distracting, fine, play something simpler, or watch soccer, do chores, anything where the moment to moment continuity does not require effort to track, but still gives you some benefit.
To those that missed the joke - 'consuming' the classics is the antithesis of a liberal arts education. The value lies in the engagement, the debate, the Hegellian dialectic involved in arriving at a true grok level understanding of the text or topic.
It would be akin to reading the Sparknotes of Ulysses and being able to reference how it draws heavily on Homer's Odyssey, or utilises stream-of-consciousness narrative to great effect; and thinking that, as a result, you have the faintest understanding of the text, its conception, or its impact.
The OP almost hit on this with the 'Listen to all the online lectures from Oxford,Yale,MIT etc...'. Unlike coding bootcamps or similar, universities are not VOCATIONAL TRAINING - no matter how skewed towards that end-goal the American Economy is dictating such. As just about any Educator can attest, no amount of listening to youtube lectures will replace the University experience, nevermind the Oxbridge/Ivy League experience.
The pedagogical benefits are simply unrealisable from an AI prompt 'streamlining'- i.e. being forced to read and engage with topics outside of your comfort zone to maintain your GPA, engaging and working with people from a diversity of outlooks and backgrounds, benefitting from the 1:1 and small group sessions with the Academics who often wrote the literal book on the subject in question.
If the intersection of JSTOR and Machine Learning didn't reduce humanities to Cory Doctorow level script-kiddyism, the hoi polloi throwing prompts into a hallucinatory markov chain isn't likely to advance or diminish Academia anymore than the excess of 'MBA IN 5 DAYS!' or '...for Dummies' titles previously available.
Any conversations I've had with students or graduates of Arts, Literature, etc. indicates that their education was very much about consuming and regurgitating. Maybe the top 5% approach their studies the way you're describing but I've never seen anyone like that in the wild.