Comment by proof_by_vibes

As a playwright, I've certainly thought about AI impacting the art. In fact, it was the very eloquence of chatgpt's output that initiated all of this mania in the first place: not only was chatgpt able to explain to me gauge theory with surprising accuracy, it was able to do so using perfect Elizabethan english—exactly as I had instructed it to.

There is a missing ingredient that LLMs lack, however. They lack insight. Writing is made engaging by the promise of insight teased in its setups, the depths that are dug through its payoffs, and the revelations found in its conclusion. It requires solving an abstract sudoku puzzle where each sentence builds on something prior and, critically, advances an agenda toward an emotional conclusion. This is the rhetoric inherent to all storytelling, but just as in a good political speech or debate, everything hinges on the quality of the central thesis—the key insight that LLMs do not come equipped to provide on their own.

This is hard. Insight is hard. And an AI supporter would gladly tell you "yes! this is where prompting becomes art!" And perhaps there is merit to this, or at least there is merit insofar as Sam Altman's dreams of AI producing novel insights remain unfulfilled. This condition notwithstanding, what merit exactly do these supporters have? Has prompting become an art the same way that it has become engineering? It would seem AlphaWrite would like to say so.

But let's look at this rubric and evaluate for ourselves what else AlphaWrite would like to say:

```python # Fallback to a basic rubric if file not found return """Creative writing evaluation should consider: 1. Creativity and Originality (25%) - Unique ideas, fresh perspectives, innovative storytelling 2. Writing Quality (25%) - Grammar, style, flow, vocabulary, sentence structure 3. Engagement (20%) - How compelling and interesting the piece is to read 4. Character Development (15%) - Believable, well-developed characters with clear motivations 5. Plot Structure (15%) - Logical progression, pacing, resolution of conflicts""" ```

It's certainly just a default, and I mean no bad faith in using this for rhetorical effect, but this default also acts as a template, and it happens to be informative to my point. Insight, genuine insight, is hard because it is contingent on one's audience and one's shared experiences with them. It isn't enough to check boxes. Might I ask what makes for a better story: a narrative about a well developed princess who provides fresh perspectives on antiquated themes, or a narrative about a well developed stock broker who provides fresh perspectives on contemporary themes? The output fails to find its audience no matter what your rubric is.

And here lies the dilemma regarding the idea that prompts are an art: they are not. The prompts are not art by the simple fact that nobody will read them. What is read is what all that is communicated and any discerning audience will be alienated by anything generated by something as ambiguous as a English teacher's grading rubric.

I write because I want to communicate my insights to an audience who I believe would be influenced by them. I may be early in my career, but this is why I do it. The degree of influence I shall have measures the degree of "art" I shall attain. Not by whether or not I clear the minimum bar of literacy.