There is obviously two approaches you can adopt. Either submit your written text inclusive of content and ask AI to restyle it into the style of your favourite writer. Or broaden it to asking for the content on the subject as well as the style of the writer in the delivery of this content. In one case you are asking for style alone whilst in the other you are asking for content and style.
To give an example. I like the style of writing of James Marriott a young Times Newspaper journalist who writes on everyday life, media and cultural issues essentially humanist subjects. Whilst I also like the style of Tom Whipple a Times Newspaper scientific journalist on scientific subjects. Now if I want the best content in relation to my written subject matter if it is humanities I am going to select James Marriott whilst for science I am going to select Tom Whipple. Or I could mix and match getting James Marriot to apply his style to a scientific subject and Tom Whipple to apply his style to a humanities subject. In fact I am using AI to extract “style of writing” as an independent entity to “factual content”.
It can get even more sophisticated in that you can choose a subject content that they may have never previously written about or select a subject they have previously written about.
So in my little AI experiment below I got ChatGPT to write pieces on subjects not normally covered by James Marriott (humanist) and Tom Whipple (scientist).
So I asked ChatGPT the following questions.
Below I asked for the answer to a scientific subject question in a James Marriott humanist style.
“Write about the molecular biology of the gene in the style of James Marriott? ”
The response from ChatGPT below :-
“The gene, a term that has echoed through the annals of biological discourse for over a century, represents the fundamental unit of heredity, a microscopic maestro orchestrating the symphony of life. In the intricate dance of molecular biology, genes are the players, their sequences of nucleotides—adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine—composing the script that dictates cellular function and organismal development.
James Marriott, with his keen eye for detail and penchant for narrative elegance, might approach the gene not merely as a biochemical entity but as a character in a grander story of life itself. He would delve into the double helix of DNA, the elegant, twisting ladder that holds the genetic blueprint. This structure, elucidated by Watson and Crick in the mid-20th century, is as beautiful as it is functional, with its base pairs forming the rungs of a ladder that encodes the instructions for life.
Marriott would likely explore the gene’s role in transcription, where DNA’s code is transcribed into messenger RNA, a process reminiscent of an ancient scribe meticulously copying a sacred text. This RNA then travels to the ribosome, the cellular factory where the script is translated into proteins, the workhorses of the cell. Here, the language of nucleotides is converted into the language of amino acids, a process so precise and regulated it would astonish any observer.
In typical Marriott fashion, he would not shy away from the complexities and nuances. He would delve into the regulatory elements that control gene expression, the enhancers and silencers that act as the conductors of this genetic orchestra, ensuring that genes are expressed at the right time and place. Epigenetics, too, would find a place in his narrative—a field that unveils how chemical modifications to DNA and histones can turn genes on or off without altering the underlying genetic code, adding a layer of sophistication and adaptability to the genetic narrative.
Marriott would also touch upon the cutting-edge technologies that have revolutionized our understanding of genes, such as CRISPR-Cas9. This gene-editing tool, with its precision and potential, promises to rewrite the genetic scripts, offering possibilities for correcting genetic disorders and advancing our capabilities in biotechnology.
Yet, Marriott would balance this optimism with caution. He would ponder the ethical dimensions and the unforeseen consequences of altering the genetic code, invoking a sense of humility before the immense power we wield over the very fabric of life.
In Marriott’s hands, the molecular biology of the gene becomes more than a scientific concept; it is a profound narrative of discovery and responsibility, a testament to the intricate beauty and complexity of life. Through his words, we are reminded that genes, these tiny architects of life, hold not just the secrets of our past but the keys to our future.”
“Write about nostalgia in the style of Tom Whipple?”
With this response from ChatGPT.
In the realm of neuroscience, nostalgia is more than a hazy, golden-hued reverie; it is a robust cognitive phenomenon. Researchers have discovered that nostalgia can trigger a cascade of brain activity, lighting up regions associated with memory, reward, and emotional processing. Whipple would likely draw our attention to these findings, painting a picture of the brain as an intricate machine, where a familiar smell or a snippet of an old song can act as a key, unlocking a flood of vivid memories and associated feelings.
He would explore the evolutionary underpinnings of this phenomenon, suggesting that nostalgia may have served a crucial function in our ancestral past. In times of uncertainty or hardship, recalling past experiences of comfort and security could have provided a psychological buffer, fostering resilience. It’s a form of mental time travel that allows us to draw on the emotional resources of our past selves.
Whipple might also delve into the social dimensions of nostalgia, noting how it often centers around shared experiences and collective memories. This communal aspect can strengthen social bonds, creating a sense of continuity and belonging within a group. The resurgence of interest in cultural artifacts from decades past—think vinyl records, retro video games, and vintage fashion—can be seen as a collective yearning for a simpler, more unified time, real or imagined.
Yet, ever the skeptic, Whipple would not overlook the darker side of nostalgia. He might reference studies suggesting that excessive nostalgia can lead to a distorted view of the past, glossing over its complexities and hardships. This selective memory can be dangerous, fostering a sense of complacency or, worse, a retreat into an idealized version of history that never truly existed.
In the end, Whipple would likely conclude that nostalgia, while a natural and often comforting aspect of the human experience, is best enjoyed in moderation. It’s a spice, not a staple—a way to flavor our lives with the richness of our memories without losing sight of the present or neglecting the future.
In typical Whipple fashion, this exploration of nostalgia would be both enlightening and entertaining, blending scientific rigor with a touch of humor, reminding us that while our memories can be a source of comfort, they should never be a refuge from the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.”
Reading both responses from ChatGPT I am not sure whether the “styles” of the different authors have been well captured in the real generated text produced. Although it has been clever enough to include in the narrative the different traits of these authors whilst naming them. The next step is to submit my own content narrative to be converted by ChatGPT to their stylisations. But not today.
