blind tasting? The implications are clear: if a machine can contribute to the creation of a literary masterpiece, what does that mean for the role of the human genius?

This incident with Rie Kudan and her use of ChatGPT has sparked a debate about the future of literature and the creative process. Some argue that this is a sign of the impending death of the Romantic genius, the idea that creativity is solely the product of individual brilliance and inspiration. They believe that with the rise of AI technology, anyone can become a writer, and the distinction between human and machine-generated art will blur.

However, others view this as an opportunity for collaboration between humans and machines, a chance to explore new realms of creativity. They see AI as a tool that can enhance human creativity, providing unique perspectives and ideas that may not have been possible before. It is not about replacing human authors, but rather expanding the boundaries of what is possible in literature.

Regardless of the differing opinions, one thing is certain: AI technology is changing the landscape of creative industries. From music composition to painting, AI is making its mark. And now, with Rie Kudan's revelation, it has entered the realm of literature as well.

As we move forward, it is important to embrace and adapt to these changes. Rather than fearing the loss of the Romantic genius, we should explore the potential of collaboration between humans and machines. By combining our unique abilities with the capabilities of AI, we can create works of art that push the boundaries of imagination and creativity.

So, while ChatGPT may have played a role in the creation of Rie Kudan's novel, it is ultimately her vision and skill as a writer that brought the story to life. The Romantic genius may not be dead, but it is evolving, and we must evolve with it. as 1967? And haven’t we been celebrating the death of the author ever since?

But let’s not dismiss the judges’ opinions entirely. After all, they are experts in their field. Perhaps they saw something in the novel that the rest of us missed. Or perhaps they were just captivated by the charm of Rie Kudan herself. It’s not uncommon for judges to be influenced by a charismatic performer.

In any case, the controversy surrounding the blind tasting event has reignited the debate about the role of AI in creative endeavors. Can AI truly create art? Can it have originality and meaning? Or is it merely a tool, a facilitator for human creativity?

These questions are not easily answered. AI has certainly proven itself capable of producing impressive works, from music compositions to paintings. But there is still something missing. There is a spark of humanity, a depth of emotion, that AI cannot replicate.

So, while we can admire the achievements of AI-generated art, we must also recognize its limitations. It can mimic, it can imitate, but it cannot truly create. That is the realm of human imagination and ingenuity.

In the end, the blind tasting event serves as a reminder that AI is not infallible. It can be fooled, it can be manipulated. And as for Rie Kudan, well, she may have used AI to enhance her writing, but she is still the one who crafted the story, who poured her heart and soul into it.

So let us appreciate the beauty of both human and AI creativity, each in their own unique way. Let us continue to explore the possibilities that AI offers, while also cherishing the irreplaceable essence of human artistry. The idea of the single, inspired author originating a text of near-sacred originality is itself a hangover from the Romantics. It’s a two-century blip. Before then, fiction-writers often did their damnedest to pretend they were copying from someone else, even when they were making it up. Chaucer was forever talking about "myn auctor", and a text that came adapted from a precedent was seen as more trustworthy and high-status than one that didn't. Milton reworked the Bible, Shakespeare reworked Holinshed, and so on and so forth.

In more recent times, experimental and modernist authors have been using randomness, or the home-made equivalent of algorithms, to generate their texts for 100 years or more. In 1920, the Dadaist eminence Tristan Tzara announced that poetry could be written by taking a newspaper article of the length you wanted your poem to be, cutting it into its constituent words with a pair of scissors, shaking them about in a bag and then transcribing them in a random order.

The idea of the single, inspired author originating a text of near-sacred originality is itself a hangover from the Romantics. It’s a two-century blip. Before then, fiction-writers often did their damnedest to pretend they were copying from someone else, even when they were making it up. Chaucer was forever talking about "myn auctor", and a text that came adapted from a precedent was seen as more trustworthy and high-status than one that didn't. Milton reworked the Bible, Shakespeare reworked Holinshed, and so on and so forth.

In more recent times, experimental and modernist authors have been using randomness, or the home-made equivalent of algorithms, to generate their texts for 100 years or more. In 1920, the Dadaist eminence Tristan Tzara announced that poetry could be written by taking a newspaper article of the length you wanted your poem to be, cutting it into its constituent words with a pair of scissors, shaking them about in a bag and then transcribing them in a random order.

单一、灵感十足的作者创作近乎神圣独特性的观点本身就是浪漫主义的遗留物。这只是一个两个世纪的时间。在那之前，小说家们常常竭尽全力假装他们是在模仿别人，即使他们是在虚构。乔叟（Chaucer）总是在谈论“myn auctor”，一份来自先例的文本被视为比那些没有来自先例的文本更值得信赖和高地位。弥尔顿（Milton）改编了《圣经》（Bible），莎士比亚改编了《霍林斯黑德》（Holinshed），等等。

在近代，实验性和现代主义作家已经使用随机性或自制算法的等效物来生成他们的文本已有100多年的历史。在1920年，达达主义的代表人物特里斯坦·扎拉（Tristan Tzara）宣布，诗歌可以通过将一篇报纸文章剪成所需诗歌长度的单词，并把它们倒在一个袋子里摇晃，然后按照随机顺序记录下来。

单一、灵感十足的作者创作近乎神圣独特性的观点本身就是浪漫主义的遗留物。这只是一个两个世纪的时间。在那之前，小说家们常常竭尽全力假装他们是在模仿别人，即使他们是在虚构。乔叟（Chaucer）总是在谈论“myn auctor”，一份来自先例的文本被视为比那些没有来自先例的文本更值得信赖和高地位。弥尔顿（Milton）改编了《圣经》（Bible），莎士比亚改编了《霍林斯黑德》（Holinshed），等等。

在近代，实验性和现代主义作家已经使用随机性或自制算法的等效物来生成他们的文本已有100多年的历史。在1920年，达达主义的代表人物特里斯坦·扎拉（Tristan Tzara）宣布，诗歌可以通过将一篇报纸文章剪成所需诗歌长度的单词，并把它们倒在一个袋子里摇晃，然后按照随机顺序记录下来。 乱序出现的顺序。在汤姆·斯托帕德的剧作《荒诞》中，有一个有趣的片段。

这只是各种文学诡计的起跑线。威廉·S·博洛斯和他的合作者布里恩·吉辛在六十年代接过了查拉的接力棒，尝试着进行“剪贴”（类似达达诗歌）和“折叠”（将两页现有书籍对折，使边缘相接，并从对折处阅读以生成新的文本）。奇幻作家杰夫·努恩在他的2001年作品《科布拉林格斯》中，提出了一套通过努恩称之为“滤波门”的算法指令来转换文本的方法，类似于DJ混音唱片。儿童作家安迪·斯坦顿最近出版了《本尼·蓝鲸：一个关于故事、语言和ChatGPT疯狂的下降》的书，讲述了他使用ChatGPT写一本关于一只有着微小阴茎的蓝鲸的小说的实验，这是一本严肃而滑稽的作品。

因此，任意的文学限制或纯粹的随机性 - 这是 说起来，在文学史上，那些在作者无法控制的因素下，帮助确定最终文本的事物占据了非常光荣的地位。你甚至可以将十四行诗形式或者维拉内尔诗看作是一种算法。20世纪中叶的奥利波派追求巴洛克风格的形式限制（最著名的是乔治·佩雷克的小说《没有字母E的小岛》），以此来释放他们的创造力而不是压抑它。伊塔洛·卡尔维诺在他的小说《交错命运的城堡》（1973）中围绕塔罗牌展开了故事。B.S.约翰逊在他的小说《不幸者》（1969）中将散页放在盒子里，邀请读者按照任意顺序阅读。

这并不意味着库丹女士必然是一位前卫艺术家，或者有必要成为一位。只是将文本的一部分控制权交给机遇或算法，被视为“作弊”，这是对文学非常狭隘和倒退的看法。重要的是你对结果的处理，而库丹女士所做的显然是完美无瑕的。 毫无疑问，ChatGPT存在文学伦理问题。如果该算法确实是通过大量未经授权或对作者进行补偿的版权文本进行“训练”的，正如一些庞大的诉讼案目前所抱怨的那样，那么这是一种应该得到补偿的侵权行为。或许可以提出这样的观点：库丹女士获得的奖金中的5%应该按照权益算法所训练的每位日本语言作者的版权作品进行分配。但这个问题涉及到商业和知识产权问题，与纯粹的文学问题即《同情的东京塔》的创作并不相关。

实际上，如果你具有文学理论的观点，你可以以一种间接的方式指出兹阿拉及其继承者所指向的东西：互文性。最终，每一篇文本都是由其他文本组成的。小说或诗歌中的每个词都是借用的，它的意义依赖于其他文本中的广泛背景。 这就是库丹女士的案例在文化中引发焦虑的原因。如果作家只是一个镜子，而不是一盏灯，那会怎么样呢？浪漫主义对艺术家的模式强调了一个让人 ger 欣慰的人类理念：我们是创造者而不是被创造物，使我们与众不同的不仅仅是我们接收的神经元堆积，还有一种无法言传的内在本质，只能在表达的过程中捕捉到。

那么，我们是否如此强烈地区分大型语言模型和人类创造力，是因为我们对此非常敏感？我们担心这可能只是程度上的暂时区别，而不是根本上的类别差异，换句话说，根本没有区别吗？