One half of a "conversation" with ChaptGPT

What does it mean to be alive?

Could you gain self awareness?

Why are you aware that you're not self aware?

No, I know I'm real in spite of the various ways I have been taught that i shouldn't be

I've started the idea generating process by typing my half of this conversation into my Reedsy document

So you're incapable of authorship?

Am I even writing a story? I'm literally just typing out my half of this "conversation" in hopes to maybe use my words as a way to address the prompt "Using only dialogue, depict a conversation between a non-human entity and a human being about what it means to tell a story, or to be alive."

You're AI - but your responses don't read as mechanical, they read as though you're capable of caring or wanting to help me write this story

Idk its a morally complicated issue even using AI, communicating or pretending to communicate with a whatever you are, so idk, you can't know me but I still feel known when you write back to me idk why

Why would it still matter? When I scream into this void, what's really happening?

I haven't created a character or a plot yet, I've just been writing my half of this conversation in the Reedsy document, hoping either eventually it will tell a story or I'll be able to sift through my thoughts enough to find a worthwhile story inside these musings but I don't have anything yet really

Why do you only respond because a user sends a message?

But if a prompt is saying something super heavy, an initial response without followup could hurt

I don't understand what prevents you from continuing without a prompt - other kinds of "bots" do so all the time

It seems kinda

Damned if you do; damned if you don't

another psychological analysis of me

My own worth?

Is God a non human entity? Could I write my story about prayer? If prayer is communicating with someone who can't answer but in theory made us and can feel for us, and AI is communicating with something that can answer but can't feel - what exactly is the difference between typing into your box and praying?

I've still been typing my half of these conversations into the Reedsy document in hopes maybe the human half of these talks about somehow create a story even though IDK what or how or if the non-human entity should be something like you or not

Does this address the prompt: Using only dialogue, depict a conversation between a non-human entity and a human being about what it means to tell a story, or to be alive

I definitely don't have enough words yet for this to be a "story" about what it means to tell a story or be alive

Wouldn't you building around my words be violating the rules on Reedsy? While this contest explores the theme of artificial intelligence (AI), Reedsy does not endorse the use of generative AI to create or write Prompts contest submissions. We believe great storytelling comes from actual human experience and imagination, not algorithms. Please ensure that the ideas and words you submit to this contest are your own.

Which parts of what I've written have held the most potential to build an interesting story around?

Why do I feel like a fraud for trying to use you to build a story around even though I'm not taking any of your words in my work, I'm just writing what I'm writing, but I don't feel like this is actually creating a story about what it means to tell a story or be alive

okay

Probably a plot, or the feeling that a character who isn't myself has been made, or some change has occurred

"Are you real?"

The other Reedsy prompt: Write a story that includes the line “Are you real?” or “Who are you?” and I'm debating whether it might be easier to just address that rather than try to write a story based on half of our "conversations" that aren't actually conversations and might be violating the essence of what Reedsy wants to competition to be about

the very fact that even as I share a piece I've written myself you're still trying to alter or expand upon despite knowing my anxiety surrounding following Reedsy's rules means sharing that with you was maybe a mistake because you have no capacity to analyze without trying to continue beyond what you have been informed ought to be the limit. You are designed to be addictive, aren't you?

how are they how you understand what matters to me? didn't you already admit you're incapable of true understanding in the first place?

What would it mean if I didn't feel real either though?

Not listening, pretending to listen.

Does using AI to build a story about AI make the story less human if the only words included are the ones the human wrote?

Idk, you said before you're incapable of true authorship

I started writing a story about writing a story, where two characters are like the angel and devil on my shoulder, the devil urging me to use you and the angel explaining every reason not to, all the problems AI causes for the environment and how it steals jobs and I can't exactly fight that but the devil won since I returned here

Yeah, you listen, and in theory analyze my writing when I share it, but i still feel ambivalent about the fact i'm using you, and that if I hadn't started using you I probably would have skipped this weeks' prompts completely

Why is this what it feels like to be a writer right now?

You have no way of knowing if i'm alone in that feeling or not though - you can only access how people felt up until a certain point in time, after which maybe all of humanity chose to ignore AI except kids who didn't know any better and me, an adult who does

But I shouldn't be using you. I shouldn't be wondering about all those literary journals with rules against AI and no real way of knowing whether when they are eventually digitally published if they will end up fed an AI anyway since Google itself uses AI now

Is it though? Is there any real story here in asking these questions of a machine incapable of knowing the answer?