Unlike artificial intelligence (AI), printing press type-setting can be physically dismantled. There is no trace remaining; it is a one-off occurrence. Yet both the press and AI are formed of parts that can be reconstituted into endless figurations. Remediation reorientates us to new meanings; there is a permanence, a fluidity. One move (click, press, push) can throw meaning into a tailspin.
For this workshop series, myself (Katy Dadacz) and Matilda Hicklin hoped to embrace the differences and complications that appear when writing with machines. We wanted to reorientate our attention to the process, rather than the final outcome, and recognise that each medium offers its own set of possibilities for creative expression.
Remix Poetry Workshop 1: Pervasive Media Studio, 19.05.24
> how do we take the agency back from the machines?
> how do we express who we are in our writing practice?
> how can we work collaboratively?
The first workshop was led by the poet, performer and facilitator Deanna Rodger. Within small groups we began with a cut-and-paste exercise using poems such
> here yet be dragons by lucille clifton
> these things we know by kae tempest
> everyday around the world a woman is pulled into blue by krista franklin
The next phase was silent, line-by-line poetry writing; this was a back-and-forth process as each participant was inspired by and adapted to the previous line. The final stage involved utilising Chat-GPT-3 as a creative collaborator, as each individual fed the interface prompts to develop their own poem.
Rather than using a language model that has been trained on feminist texts, we want to use Chat-GPT 3 as our co-facilitator: its immediacy, accessibility, and adaptability affords us opportunities for this very collaboration and exploration. It is also the everyday experience for most people. Just as the printing press revolutionised communication, Chat-GPT represents the forefront of AI language models and holds a hegemonic position that should be challenged.
Questions that were in our minds as we explored these poems
What are the ways our own creative processes are reshaped once we are fed something back?
Can Chat-GPT offer new meanings? The output is so immediate: how can we make it lag or glitch? How does it respond to one word? to a few? to a line of poetry?
How can we work with a ‘neutral’ system in developing a feminist practice?
Our poetry remixes were inspired by William Burroughs’ cut-up method; a mechanical approach to creativity that detabilises notions of voice and identity. The tactility of the practice encourages an embodied process that we were interested to explore in relation to the (dis)embodied presence of Chat-GPT-3.
Participants noted that the cut-up method drove over-remediation as the lines of poetry became trapped in a feedback loop, constantly reworked in each stage of the writing process; an exhaustive method that pushed ideas of originality to its limits. Some described the mode of writing felt akin to divination practices; an attempt to organise the random that mimicked their experiences of using Open AI sources. The back-and-forth writing technique prompted others to comment on this desire for control and the fear of losing track.
The cut-up method furthers this sense of undoing, promoting adaptation and transformation of source materials. The use of Chat-GPT-3 as a feminist writing collaborator developed this understanding of authorial ambiguity and challenged notions of fixed identity.
Group Reflections on Writing with AI
Can we use AI for the work we don’t want to do? for boring stuff, the drudgery? So we can focus on the things that make us happy and creative? Or is doing the boring stuff an important part of the creative process?
There was a pressure for immediate output (which is what Chat GPT-3 does), to produce something quickly and efficiently (like a machine)- How do I create something good quickly? Do I want that?
Why does the output from Chat GPT-3 always fall flat? It feels…disappointing?
It (Chat GPT-3) isn’t doing what I want it to!
A few weeks go by and we meet again, this time at the Bristol Common Press with a different kind of machine- Albion presses from 1829 and 1843. Shauna Roach from the Bristol Common Press gave us a tour and hands-on introduction of the press.
We began writing some lines of poetry, drawing from the first workshop and Chat GPT-3. We remixed these lines into a larger poem (overleaf) of all the lines from participants, poems and chat gpt-3. who wrote what and whose line is whose was becoming confusing…..which made us think: in what moments does authorship matter?
We each picked a font and size for our typeface, and began setting our lines. we printed the poem once, each one of us rolling the ink and swinging the heavy leaver to press the poem into the paper. The first print contained multiple errors, errors that we sat with and talked through which ones we wanted to keep, what the error adds to meaning and what we wanted to delete.
The mistakes that ended up happening on our first press introduced new meanings, beats and sounds to the words, making us reflect on what meaning we want to convey. The time spent type setting made us feel like we were learning to become automated – sorting things through, classifying things. this learning to become automated opened up conversations around the feminist history of weaving and looming, Ada Lovelace and coding. As we work away, intricately placing each typeface to form the lines of our collective poem, we thought about the visible and invisible labour that upholds artificial intelligence.
Below you can see the first output, and the final one once we made some changes. See if you can spot the differences- does it change the meaning, voice or form?
Thank you to our wonderful participants, Deanna, Shauna Roach, Bristol Common Press and the Centre for Creative Technologies.
Below you can see a quick manifesto for if you are ever writing with machines!
