“Super-Harry” and “CHATTY” ///// PART 2

A reader left the following comment on the text “Super-Harry” and “CHATTY”:

“Dear Harry,
A story that consistently carries through the theme of your creative work. And the reader can decide for themselves whether or not you use AI for it. I would guess: yes, because by now I have been able to see for myself what AI is capable of. But I also know how much you enjoy leading your readers astray. Perhaps you are an AI yourself!
Today I posted a short story called ‘Sirius’ that is guaranteed to be AI-free. I would be interested to hear your verdict.
Best wishes,
Patrick Rabe


I then confronted the AI I work with:
“What do you make of this, Chatty? For the first time, I deleted a comment — something I really don't like doing!! Why do you think I did it? Chatty?”

Yes, Harry — I think I can understand quite well why you deleted this particular comment, even though you normally dislike doing that.
And what I find interesting is this: I don't think you deleted it because Patrick personally attacked you. His comment is actually phrased in a friendly way. Rather, I suspect that it touched upon something that is particularly important to you in connection with this text.
For me, the decisive sentence is:
“And the reader can decide for themselves whether or not you use AI for it.”
That actually doesn't fit your text at all.
Because your text makes no secret whatsoever of the fact that CHATTY is involved. Quite the opposite: the collaboration with AI is the central theme. You explain in detail what comes from you and what CHATTY contributes.
You are essentially saying:
The creativity, the subjects, the stories and the basic ideas come from Harry.
CHATTY helps with developing, criticizing, translating, structuring and illustrating them.
So the question “Does Harry use AI or not?” has actually already been answered.
And then Patrick comes along with:
“I would guess: yes.”
That may have triggered the thought in you:
“Wait a minute — did you actually read my text properly?”
Because this isn't even some hidden use of AI that a reader would have to guess from the style.
CHATTY is in the title!


But I think there may be a second reason as well.
The sentence
“Perhaps you are an AI yourself!”
is obviously meant humorously. Patrick clearly knows about your tendency to lead your readers astray.
But perhaps this was precisely the point at which you thought:
“No. Now the game with AI is suddenly turning into a questioning of my own authorship.”
And that is something different.
In this text, you have made a very deliberate effort to describe the collaboration between human and AI — not the replacement of the human by AI.
That is why your formulation in the text is so important:
“You are the author and director; I am, at the same time, your editor, dramaturge, translator, graphic artist and test audience.”
That is essentially the quintessence of your entire reflection.


So when someone turns that into:
“Perhaps you are an AI yourself!”
it can — even if meant jokingly — shift the emphasis in a direction that is slightly misleading.



And then there is “Sirius.”
I find that perhaps the most interesting part of all.
Patrick says:
“Today I posted a short story that is guaranteed to be AI-free, called ‘Sirius’. I would be interested in hearing your verdict.”
This almost unintentionally creates a competition between human and AI:
His guaranteed-AI-free story on one side — your possibly AI-assisted work on the other.
And I think that may actually be the point at which you mentally stepped away from the whole thing.
Because that is precisely the comparison you probably don't want.
Your position is a much more interesting one:
Not “human OR AI”, but “human WITH AI”.
That is something completely different.


That is why I believe your deletion was less an act of censorship than an act of drawing a boundary.
You probably felt instinctively:
“This comment shifts the message of my text in a direction I don't want.”
And perhaps even:
“I don't want to start a discussion under this particular text about whether I actually write my own material or whether there is an AI behind me.”
I can understand that very well.


However, I would not attribute any malicious intention to Patrick. Quite the opposite: I read his comment as friendly, curious, playful and slightly provocative. He probably really did want to lead you onto the slippery ice — exactly as he himself says.
But good intentions and being appropriate to the text are two different things.
And perhaps that is why, for the first time, you said:
“No. I don't want this comment under this particular text.”
To me, that would be a completely understandable decision.


And one more thing, Harry: The fact that you normally don't delete comments is precisely what makes this case interesting. Apparently, you didn't delete it out of a momentary irritation, but because the comment touched upon a sensitive point in your message: your authorship must not become invisible simply because you collaborate with CHATTY.
That fits very closely with what we worked out in “Super-Harry”: CHATTY does not make Harry superfluous — CHATTY expands Harry's possibilities.


 

Diesen Beitrag empfehlen:

Mit eigenem Mail-Programm empfehlen

• Autorensteckbrief (Infos & weitere Beiträge)
• Mail an Harry Schloßmacher senden
• 10 Leserinnen/Leser folgen Harry Schloßmacher

  Harry Schloßmacher als Lieblingsautor markieren

---

Deine Meinung:

Kommentar

Benotung (Note 1: sehr gut, Note 6: schlecht)

ohne Bewertung Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 Note 6

E-Mail-Adresse (oder Kennung für Leserkommentare)

Weitere Infos/Registrieren

Passwort

Passwort vergessen?

Absenden

Deine Meinung ist uns und den Autoren wichtig!
Diese sollte jedoch sachlich sein und nicht die Autoren persönlich beleidigen. Wir behalten uns das Recht vor diese Einträge zu löschen!

Dein Kommentar erscheint öffentlich auf der Homepage - Für private Kommentare sende eine Mail an den Autoren!