The first idea was a "novel" one :) but I had questions about what would happen once the story (i.e. context) became long enough.
You could maybe do some clever things to compact the story line or index it somehow to aim to push the story's length beyond "normal" limits, but at some point you're going to start pushing up against the context window and get diminishing returns on the quality and "accuracy" (or adherence to the previously established facts or truths of the worlds it's creating).
The second idea sounds like just a bunch of AI-generated sci-fi novels with nothing connecting them i.e. AI slop. The author references "an overall story arch" but does not mention anything other than there are two LLMs that each write a paragraph in a novel until it is done and then move on to another novel.
"I wanted to find something to read, and finish, in one or two evenings. Over the years, I grew a slight disgust for ultra-long forms that drag on like soap operas, no matter how epic or interesting."
They seem like a prime candidate for Gilligan's Island reruns on MeTV.
A novel has a very specific definition, and these texts do not qualify. The gulf between 75 paragraphs and a novel (even a novella) is vast.
AI is nowhere near being able to produce a novel worth reading. The author's already heavily qualifying these ~10 page short stories, because the ratio of slop to moderately interesting content is still so unacceptably high.
Consider putting some energy towards finding more human sci-fi worth reading, because Asimov might be a pioneer, but he is hardly the most accessible or enjoyable read. I guarantee this brand of chocolate is better.
The first idea was a "novel" one :) but I had questions about what would happen once the story (i.e. context) became long enough.
You could maybe do some clever things to compact the story line or index it somehow to aim to push the story's length beyond "normal" limits, but at some point you're going to start pushing up against the context window and get diminishing returns on the quality and "accuracy" (or adherence to the previously established facts or truths of the worlds it's creating).
The second idea sounds like just a bunch of AI-generated sci-fi novels with nothing connecting them i.e. AI slop. The author references "an overall story arch" but does not mention anything other than there are two LLMs that each write a paragraph in a novel until it is done and then move on to another novel.
"I wanted to find something to read, and finish, in one or two evenings. Over the years, I grew a slight disgust for ultra-long forms that drag on like soap operas, no matter how epic or interesting."
They seem like a prime candidate for Gilligan's Island reruns on MeTV.
A novel has a very specific definition, and these texts do not qualify. The gulf between 75 paragraphs and a novel (even a novella) is vast.
AI is nowhere near being able to produce a novel worth reading. The author's already heavily qualifying these ~10 page short stories, because the ratio of slop to moderately interesting content is still so unacceptably high.
Consider putting some energy towards finding more human sci-fi worth reading, because Asimov might be a pioneer, but he is hardly the most accessible or enjoyable read. I guarantee this brand of chocolate is better.
Infinite slop.