from Comment to Essay

ChatGPT writes an article from a comment.

Color samples from the painting The Knife Grinder by Kazimir Malevich

Here is a prompt based on a comment I made to Annette from the previous article The Ontological Museum and Thinking About Collecting …

CHATGPT - organize this comment into a 500 word article: “Another thing - I have been going through the AI version of 'what is the Ontological Museum' and removing the filler that is more like sophomore essay writing about something you don't really know about and writing in the actual intention and process as it is in my mind. So yes, what we want to read about is the internal intentions and intuitions and the wisdom and insights developed through direct practice that AI cannot possibly provide. But I do think adding some organization structure seems good. But I am also kind of quirky a lot of the time when I am writing, some of that can be improved by looking at the AI version of the thoughts because it helps me to: "no that is not right" or 'this part is missing' or 'no, that is completely off base'. I think a reader can see that too and feel like they are getting a pretty but non nutritious bit of writing.”

---

ChatGPT response:

When writing about an intricate subject like the Ontological Museum or other artistic philosophies, it's essential to move beyond surface-level descriptions or standard structures to capture the true internal intentions and direct practices that guide the creative process. Artificial Intelligence can sometimes help by providing a structured framework or general ideas, but it often lacks the depth and intuition that comes from hands-on experience. This leads to writing that, while neat and organized, may lack the wisdom and insight necessary to truly resonate with the reader.

For an artist or thinker who has a clear and developed understanding of their craft, AI-generated content may feel like a superficial summary—useful for pointing out what is missing but not capable of expressing the full complexity of their intentions. For instance, an AI might generate explanations that seem polished but don’t capture the subtleties, quirks, and nuances that are part of genuine creative insight. These nuances are developed through years of experience and reflection—elements that AI, by nature, can't replicate because it hasn’t lived or practiced art.

The role of AI in such a process might best be seen as an external editorial tool—something that helps refine thoughts, catch errors, and provide organizational frameworks. However, the heart of the writing—the inspiration, intuition, and wisdom—can only come from the person engaged in the work. In this way, AI may serve as a useful counterpoint, helping the creator realize what doesn't work or what feels off, but it cannot be the main source of content that accurately captures deep artistic or philosophical practice.

It’s important, when writing, to retain those quirky, personal elements that make the voice authentic. While refining through an AI-generated structure might seem to bring clarity, it is critical to ensure that the final result doesn’t lose its depth and substance in favor of structure. When readers engage with content—particularly about subjects like the Ontological Museum, art, or philosophical projects—they aren’t just seeking clarity but also a sense of being in conversation with the creator's inner world.

Incorporating organization and structure is helpful, but over-organization can remove some of the organic flow and creativity that make the writing stand out. The best writing strikes a balance between structured clarity and intuitive flow, where the reader feels they are participating in an ongoing exploration of ideas rather than reading a well-packaged but nutrient-lacking explanation.

For those with a well-developed internal process, the true challenge lies in striking that balance—taking the valuable insights and quirky, intuitive expressions that are core to the work and organizing them just enough to make the ideas accessible without losing their essence. So, while AI can offer a helpful foil, it's ultimately the direct experience and intuition of the creator that brings authenticity, meaning, and substance to the writing. (468 words)

---

I have to say, that is pretty good! Would I go in and do stuff to it? Yes I would and maybe I will. Or I could ask more questions to AI to have it give more detail. The limit is imagination and practice in the end. It is after all, a tool.

I then asked AI to write the above article as a short poem…

---

AI writes with precision,
But misses the heart's vision.
It gives a frame, neat and right,
Yet lacks the artist's inner light.

Through practice deep, wisdom grows,
Intuition flows where no code knows.
Editing lines, yes, it may guide,
But only we hold truth inside.

Quirks and insights, personal, clear,
That’s the voice readers hold dear.
Structure may help refine the way,
But the soul must always have its say.

---

According to my daughter Nisa, there are ways to prompt the AI to adopt or simulate your personal style into the AI responses and that it will, over time and with enough input, get good at it.
Another thing is, once you have the above AI response, you can then start to go back through it and tweek and edit. So it seems like it is a good tool. It is like having a dictionary/encyclopedia/personal librarian on steroids.