Humans as natural-born cyborgs: Scrutinising AI’s narrative intelligence within the 5E cognition framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.25.8.8Keywords:
Narratology, AI, ChatGPT, narrative intelligence, 5E cognition, co-narration, communicationAbstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to generate content align with both perspectives: AI as a powerful assistant and AI as a potential challenge to human cognition. However, these advancements expose the persistent limitations of AI compared to humans. One such limitation, as demonstrated by the folk narrative hypothesis (Hutto 2008), is the uniquely human ability to engage in storytelling, a fundamental and ancient mechanism for memory, information storage, identity formation, and world-making or world-disruption. The ability of AI to generate coherent texts is often mistaken for its intelligence, raising false claims about AI self-consciousness and sentience. This paper argues that human narrative intelligence as a drive for sense-making might turn imperfect AI text generation into a meaningful construct despite cognitive dissonance in the communication. By analysing the technical prompts used by ChatGPT-4 to generate narrative text and its understanding of key text production categories (coherence, fluency, complexity, etc.) within the 5E Cognition framework (Stilwell & Harman 2019), I will attempt to show how AI-generated narrative structures acquire full and meaningful interpretation when perceived by a human. The generative ability of AI which emerges in co-communication with a human cannot stand for its intelligence, since it reflects human perception and our intrinsic ability to hypothesise and engage with communication agents.
References
Avery, S. 2024. “Phantoms of Citation: AI and the Death of the Author-Function”. Poetics Today, Vol. 45, No. 2, 223–231. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092818.
Caracciolo, M., K. Kukkonen. 2021. With Bodies: Narrative Theory and Embodied Cognition. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Clark, A. 2001. Natural-Born Cyborgs? In: Beynon, M., C. L. Nehaniv and K. Dautenhahn (eds.). Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind. CT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2117. Heidelberg: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44617-6_2.
Di Paolo, E. A., E. C. Cuffari and H. De Jaegher. 2018. Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press.
Duede, E., So, R. J. “The Humanistic Case for AI Optimism”. Poetics Today, Vol. 45, No. 2, 215–222. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092805.
Evans, D. 2003. Emotion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Evron, N., R. Tartakovsky. 2024. “The AI Revolution: Speculations on Authorship, Pedagogy, and the Future of the Profession”. Poetics Today, Vol. 45, No. 2, 189–195. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092765
Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a “Natural” Narratology. London: Routledge.
Fuchs, T. 2020. “The Circularity of the Embodied Mind”. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01707.
Fuller, D., B. Magerko. 2010. Shared Mental Models in Improvisational Performance. In Proceedings of the Intelligent Narrative Technologies III Workshop (INT3 ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, Article 15, 1–6 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1822309.1822324.
Gallagher, S. 2017. Enactivist Interventions: Rethinking the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gervás, Pablo. 2024. Challenges and Opportunities for Computational Construction of Narratives. In Voigts, E., R. M. Auer, D. Elflein, S. Kunas, J. Röhnert and C. Seelinger (eds.). Artificial Intelligence – Intelligent Art?: Human-Machine Interaction and Creative Practice. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 111–124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839469224-007.
Hayles, K. N. 2024. “Don’t Ban AI from Your Writing Classroom; Require It!”. Poetics Today, Vol. 45, No. 2, 259–265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092870.
Herman, D. 2011. Basic Elements of Narrative. New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://scispace.com/pdf/basic-elements-of-narrative-20tcb2kjzl.pdf.
Herman, D., M. Jahn, M.-L. Ryan. 2005. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge.
Hutto, D. D. 2008. “The Narrative Practice Hypothesis: Clarifications and Implications”. Philosophical Explorations, Vol. 11, No. 3, 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790802245679.
Iser, W. 1974. The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach. In The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Banyan to Beckett. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Livytska, I. 2019. “The Art of Narration and Artificial Narrative Intelligence: Implications for Interdisciplinary Research”. Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, Vol. 7, No. 13, 309–318, Available at: https://www.nalans.com/index.php/nalans/article/view/197.
Mahowald, K. et al. 2023. “Dissociating Language and THought in Large Language Models: A Cognitive Perspective”. ArXiv, arXiv:2301.06627v3. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.06627.
Newen, A., S. Gallagher and L. De Bruin. 2018. 4E Cognition: Historical Roots, Key Concepts, and Central Issues. In Newen, A., L. De Bruin and S. Gallagher (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford Library of Psychology (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 9 Oct. 2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.1.
Paolucci, C. 2025 “The Myth of Meaning: Generative AI as Language-endowed Machines and the Machinic Essence of the Human Being” Semiotica, Vol. 2025, No. 262, 5–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2024-020.
Phelan, J. 2024. “ChatGPT and the Territory of Contemporary Narratology; or, A Rhetorical River Runs through It”. Poetics Today, 1 June 2024; 45 (2): 197–205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092778.
Pollard, N., J. Ahlander. 2024. Nobel physics prize 2024 won by AI pioneers John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton. Reuters, 9 October 2024. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/science/hopfield-hinton-win-2024-nobelprize-physics-2024-10-08/.
Pütz, O., E. Esposito. 2024. “Performance without Understanding: How ChatGPT Relies on Humans to Repair Conversational Trouble”. Discourse & Communication, Vol. 18, No. 6, 859–868. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241271492.
Sebeok, T. A, D. J. Umiker-Sebeok. 1976. Speech Surrogates: Drum and Whistle Systems, 2 parts. Reprint 2016.
Shroff, L. 2025. ChatGPT Gave Instructions for Murder, Self-Mutilation, and Devil Worship. The Atlantic, 24 July 2025. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/07/chatgpt-ai-self-mutilation-satanism/683649/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo.
Slater, A. 2024. “Phantoms of Citation: AI and the Death of the Author-Function”. Poetics Today, Vol. 45, No. 2, 223–231. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-11092818.
Stilwell, P., K. Harman. 2021. “Phenomenological Research Needs to be Renewed: Time to Integrate Enactivism as a Flexible Resource”. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921995299.
Szilas, N., U. M. Richle. 2013. Towards a Computational Model of Dramatic Tension. In: Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative. Hamburg, 257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.CMN.2013.
Thompson, E. 2005. “Sensorimotor Subjectivity and the Enactive Approach to Experience”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, 407–427. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9003-x.
Turing, A. M. 1937. “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem”. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Vol. s2-42, No. 1, 230–265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230.
