What came first, the chicken or the egg?

When ChatGPT and other AI tools for creative writing began to emerge, as author-publishers, it was clear to us that we had to explore them. Since we can’t stop progress, we might as well learn to harness it as soon as possible.

For some years now, a story has been waiting to be told: the true tale of the cat belonging to one of our team members, who often claims that she has a more fascinating life than him.

And so, the chicken met the egg.

We felt this story was particularly well-suited for experimenting with creative writing AI tools because we decided to tell it from a neutral point of view. Adopting a quasi-documentary narrative, we aimed to describe events objectively, without delving into the thoughts and inner monologues of the characters. This approach put characters on an equal footing with animals, creating a kind of literary animal documentary. Given that the style had to adhere to specific rules and grammatical nuances, we believed that AI would manage these instructions more effectively.

We chose a more spontaneous and playful approach, rather than a rigorous and methodical one, to keep the project fresh and pragmatic, since pragmatic needs drive the use of this technology. Throughout the process, each team member had their own perspective on the adventure. How much creativity should ChatGPT and other AI tools be allowed?

It quickly became apparent that to achieve a satisfactory result, it was preferable to limit the creativity of these tools. We asked them to perform very specific tasks: developing sections based on our summaries or correcting style. Importantly, these tools now enable anyone to write, more or less perfectly, in a foreign language. In less than a year, we have also observed significant progress in the capabilities of these tools, particularly ChatGPT.

Each team member worked with their own approach and prompts and drew different conclusions. However, a common consensus emerged: these tools are still more bureaucratic than intelligent. For now, they lack the ability to infuse their work with a soul—and in a way, that’s good news.

We have kept archives of our work, especially the first part, which can be consulted here.