Analysis of Technology’s Efficacy

It is very interesting that ChatGPT was able to produce something pretty cohesive with a brief prompt. ChatGPT even edited the concerns I had when I changed the prompt upon each story generation. That said, I think the software does not want to stray far from my prompt. My prompt was asking for a mystery that would be solved, but the way the mystery was solved was just through a computer file which was labeled “Origins” which was just an incredibly trite way to solve a mystery. That said, when I changed the prompt in a way that asked for clarification, ChatGPT was able to clarify on some muddled elements. In a previous incarnation of the story, it stated that an accident was just a “catastrophic event [that] had caused our ship to veer off course” that killed the entire crew. The story explained what the event was, though it did not say why the main character survived in a way that I found satisfying. 

I find that ChatGPT is a capable bit of software that can flesh out small ideas into complete sentences that, for the most part, are written with clarity. I do find that the software’s creativity is not something that can compare with what a human can write. ChatGPT will answer questions of mystery with “Luckily, the main character eventually solved the mystery”. This can be useful for an idea, it does not capture the intricacies that can make a human-written story captivating. Humans are capable of twists and emotional depth in their characters that can engage readers. Ideas are nice to have but they do not make a narrative that can resonate with a reader.