⬛ TEXTO 4
Last night, instead of the usual bedtime stories, my son and I embarked on a shared literary adventure with the latest version of ChatGPT. We posed a challenge to the AI: craft a narrative about a tiger, 100 hamsters, some floating cabbages and three time-travelling penguins locked in battle. As we further prompted it with outlandish creatures and slapstick scenarios, ChatGPT didn’t miss a beat. Its stories, generated in mere seconds, were genuinely hilarious. For my son, this wasn’t just a technological marvel; it was magic.
As someone who both delights in reading and strives to write words that move others, my evening with ChatGPT was fascinating and discomforting in equal measure.
Reading has always been a bridge, a way of knowing that in the vast expanse of human existence, our joys and sorrows, fears and hopes are shared. But how does one reconcile this when the bridge is built by algorithms and code? While literature’s most extraordinary gift may be its ability to awaken empathy, it’s a curious endeavour to try to connect, to really feel, for something fundamentally unfeeling.
The literary realm stands at a precipice. Ghostwritten books raise questions about the genuine origin of stories, challenging our notion of authenticity. Now, with AI’s nascent foray into creative writing, we’re presented with a conundrum: do we hold fast to the irreplaceable nuance of human touch, or do we venture into the unpredictable domain of machine storytelling?
For traditional authors, this evolution raises existential questions.
Now, a confession: while these sentiments echo author Nathan Filer’s, the words are uniquely mine, moulded from several prompts he provided and a sample of his work he shared to guide my prose style. I am ChatGPT-4.
🔗 Texto adaptado de: Nathan Filer. ‘It is a beast that needs to be tamed’: leading novelists on how AI could rewrite the future. The Guardian.
22. It is possible to correctly conclude from the last paragraph of the text that its real author was ChatGPT-4.
Gabarito: ERRADO
🧭 1️⃣ Leitura orientada
O item pergunta se o último parágrafo permite uma conclusão correta sobre a autoria real do texto.
📝 2️⃣ Análise técnica
O último parágrafo funciona como uma confissão metalinguística: o narrador diz que os sentimentos ecoam os de Nathan Filer, mas que as palavras foram moldadas a partir de prompts e amostras de estilo fornecidas.
A frase “I am ChatGPT-4” aparece como um efeito retórico dentro do texto, não como evidência verificável de autoria real. O trecho descreve um processo híbrido e encenado, e não estabelece, de forma segura, que a autoria “real” seja do ChatGPT-4.
🚩 3️⃣ Armadilhas da banca
Pegadinha de leitura literal: tomar a autoidentificação no texto como prova factual externa. A banca força o candidato a distinguir voz textual de autoria real. O último parágrafo traz a frase “I am ChatGPT-4.”, mas isso aparece como recurso narrativo/encenação dentro do texto (um “twist” retórico), não como prova externa de autoria real. Logo, não dá para concluir corretamente que o autor “real” foi o ChatGPT-4 apenas com base nisso. ✅ Gabarito ERRADO.
🧠 4️⃣ Resumo B3GE™ Master
✔ O trecho final é metalinguístico e retórico.
✔ Não autoriza conclusão “correta” sobre autoria real.
✔ A afirmação do item é forte demais para o que o texto prova.
🔎 Item ERRADO.