Abstract

OpenAI's ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) that excels at generating text and public controversy. Upon its release, many marveled at its ability to author intelligible and generically responsible texts (Herman). Writing about his students' experiences using artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistants, S. Scott Graham remarks that the results were "consistently mediocre—and usually quite obvious in their fabrication." Why might this be true? How can an LLM succeed in some respects and fail in others? We argue that the discrepant reactions to human and AI rhetoric are a question of genre, specifically that AI rhetoric is only generic; AI rhetoric represents a new enactment of "writing degree zero" (Barthes) that is disengaged from immediate rhetorical situations and knowledge bases. AI text generators (currently) have a more difficult time simulating the positioned perspectives that human writers bring to situations and communicate to audiences through their genre usage. Drawing on the work of Bakhtin, we treat this problem as a question of generic form and audience addressivity. We describe the interplay of form and addressivity as genre signaling and offer it as a construct for the analysis of AI rhetoric and genre as a cultural form (Miller). Genre signaling (Hart-Davidson and Omizo) describes a feature of communicative behavior as it occurs over time that can help both humans and machines evaluate written discourse as it exhibits certain stabilized formal features. When texts contain specific genre signals at expected frequencies and intensities, it may be recognized as being generally accurate, reliable, trustworthy. Without these signals, a text with a similar topical focus might fail to be taken as credible or useful. In this essay we propose to quantify genre signaling based on three measures: (1) stability, (2) frequency, and (3) periodicity.

Journal
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Published
2024-05-26
DOI
10.1080/02773945.2024.2343615
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. College Composition and Communication
  2. College English

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Computers and Composition
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Written Communication
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1075/scl.28
  2. 10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165
  3. 10.1075/cagral.4
  4. 10.7771/2832-9414.1223
  5. 10.4324/9781315836010
  6. 10.1007/978-3-319-51268-6_6
  7. 10.1016/j.dss.2017.06.007
  8. 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13413
  9. 10.5406/illinois/9780252037528.001.0001
  10. 10.1109/TPC.2006.880743
  11. 10.1075/scl.109.01kau
  12. 10.1515/9783110469639-008
  13. 10.48550/arXiv.1802.03888
  14. 10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.010
  15. 10.1080/00335638409383686
  16. 10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.08
  17. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102771
  18. 10.48550/arXiv.1908.08474
  19. 10.1515/9783110214406.165
  20. 10.55177/tc812725
  21. 10.1163/9789004484801_013
  22. 10.1177/1461445609341006
  23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.011
  24. 10.1080/15252019.2015.1091755
  25. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.038
  26. 10.1177/0263276420910464
CrossRef global citation count: 7 View in citation network →