Observations On A ChatGPT Collaboration

one path, diverged

AI Image by Dall-E

Sometimes, you just need to play to figure out something new.

Yesterday, a few friends joined me in exploring a collaboration feature within ChatGPT that allows you to share out a query/response, and another person can then build on it, and then share it back out.

It works OK, but there is no overview map of where the strands get taken, and by whom. It’s easy to be using a link that someone else has already used and advanced, and you’re still in the past. Things can get confusing, quickly. It would make more sense to do this with a single partner, sharing information and queries and responses back and forth (this could be a classroom activity between two students, perhaps?)

There were about a half dozen friends working at various times, sharing back links here at the blog or on Twitter, and two strands emerged at the end, with a slight diversion. I brought both to a “close” this morning by asking ChatGPT to write a poem in the style of either Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman.

Strand One: https://chat.openai.com/share/c70b7769-729e-4e8e-83da-f1ee1974e53a

Strand Two: https://chat.openai.com/share/09319ab7-363b-4f64-b297-2a1a0b59fbbf

You can still play around with the strands, if you want, as this game of ChatGPT Tennis, as Wendy calls it, is everlasting (I think). Just share the link to your extension somewhere and we’ll play on.

Peace (and Play),

  1. Audience participation as a form of reflection? Never has the composition idea of purpose been more important. Why are we writing and why are we including AI in the editorial workflow?

    • Good questions. I saw this experiment as a way to figure out if collaboration feature added to Chat could work for a gathering of online contributors, and I don’t think it does in this way that it unfolded. No map makes for a confusing journey. I am not sure the AI added much, other than as a play experiment, and I am always up to play around and see potential (as you know, as you are, too). I think on reflection of intention, and how a theme or pathway forward (maybe a collaborative Interactive Fiction story? I wonder about an Exquisite Corpse format, too.) could make more sense. But who is audience here? The players, I suppose.

      • Totally in favor of the experiment and the improvisation. I use ChatGPT as a thinking parrtner. If I was teaching right now we would be using chat as a form of reflection in the classroom every day. And you are right that we don’t need a purpose to play.

  2. In response to Terry’s content…purpose is brought by the humans, sensemaking by the humans, ideas in prompts or moving the story along is all human
    In my research this year I used a similiar process and expanded to image generator as Sarah did as well as poem generator that Kevin tried earlier this year…..we just came back to the human for reflection and making sense of it all. Chatgpt gives pretty (boring) poems but we can use them to play.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *