Weich, John.

Storytelling on Steroids: 10 Stories That Hijacked the Pop Culture

Conversation. BIS Publishers, 2014.

This source is relevant because it provides some theory and examples behind ten stories

that were influential in modern popular culture. I can use the stories in this book as

successful examples to keep in mind as I try to write my own well-written stories. This

source, at the time of my use, is only three years old. This book was written within this

decade and is thus still considered to be modern, which means the stories are also going

to be relevant and current. John Weich was a former senior editor of pop culture

publications, and a storyteller for brands like Starbucks, Nike, Heineken and Adidas. As

the editor of a pop culture publication, Weich would be very aware of modern trends and

would thus have the authority to write a book on the most important stories regarding pop

culture. In regard to slant, this book will not likely have much if any bias. However, such

as any “Top 10” or similar list, the book is limited to only the stories that the author

considers viable, but there could be other important stories that Weich does not mention.

Weich cites all of the stories that he used in his book which gives proof that these were

not made up by him and could be easily found by someone else. His citations lead me to

the original stories that were already used so I will not find new sources from his

bibliography.
Bringsjord, Selmer, and David A. Ferrucci. Artificial Intelligence and Literary

Creativity. Lawrence Earlbaum, 2000.

This book is about an artificial intelligence system that does exactly the thing that my

project is aiming for. The book is about an AI named BRUTUS whose purpose is to see if

a computer can rival human literary creativity. The book includes explanations, charts,

process graphs, and all sorts of data that can help me write the code for B.A.R.D. This

book was written in 2000, which is farther back than was recommended but I’d argue that

since the book is so perfectly suited for my project its date can be over looked. The

information in it such as the graphs and logical break downs are all still very relevant and

unbelievably useful. Bringsjord has graduated from Brown University with a Ph.D. in

Philosophy and specialized in the philosophical foundations of AI and cognitive science.

Bringsjord is also the chair of the Department of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute. Ferrucci graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with a

Ph.D. in Computer Science. Ferrucci is known for leading a team of computer scientists

at IBM in their Watson project. Watson was made to be a computer that someone could

ask a question in normal human language and receive an answer. Watson was such a

success that it was able to win a game of Jeopardy. Both of this book’s authors are very

invested in AI and have proven themselves to be very knowledgeable in the subject.

There is no place for slant in this source since it is a process and an explanation of facts

theorems and processes. This book’s bibliography is over 200 items long so I have an

exhaustive list of places that I could go to find more information.

Shoemaker, Natalie. “Japanese AI Writes a Novel, Nearly Wins Literary Award.” Big Think, 24

Mar. 2016, bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/a-japanese-ai-wrote-a-novel-almost-wins-

literary-award.

This source talks about a specific example of an AI system similar to BRUTUS. This

system was used to “autonomously” write a novel that was entered into a writing contest

against other human writers. This source verifies the possibility of my project and gives

some example lines excerpted from the AI’s work. The article also talks about a way that

literature AI could be made better which I can implement into B.A.R.D. This source is

from 2016 so it is very recent, and the information is still relevant. Her profile states that

Natalie Shoemaker has been writing professionally for 6 years and used to work with

PCMag.com before becoming a free-lance writer. PCMag is a well-known technology

magazine. Having worked there would have given Shoemaker some experience in writing

about technological news. This source evidences no slant because it is only reporting on

how the Japanese AI performed in the contest. The article is only stating facts and there is

no opinion in it. The article includes no formal bibliography but she does quote the leader

of the team that crafted the AI. I will not find any new sources from this article.
“The Quest for AI Creativity.” IBM Cognitive - What's next for AI, 11 Sept. 2015,

www.ibm.com/watson/advantage-reports/future-of-artificial-intelligence/ai-

creativity.html.

This webpage focuses on the ongoing quest to get AI to be “creative”. The article goes on

to define creativity, explain why our current AI isn’t at that point yet, and brings up the

burning questions that developers have about AI. This source would be very useful for

paper writing and explanations. The article offers lots of fact and theory but breaks all of

it down into language that anyone could understand. This article was posted in 2015 so it

is still current and relevant. This was written by IBM, a computer company who has been

working on AI for years. IBM is responsible for Watson, the AI mentioned earlier, which

attests to their prowess in the field. The article talks about what other experts have said

and it explains some theory and future plans for AI which is all objective fact. The article

talks about its own advances in AI which could be a potential source of slant but the way

they speak only objectively about each advancement shows that bias is not really an issue

in this article. The source does not include a formal bibliography but they do quote some

experts in the field so I could search for their works if I wanted more information.
Martiniano, Christopher. “The Scientization of Creativity.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern

Language Association, vol. 49, no. 2, 2016, pp. 161-190. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/44164809.

This source breaks down what creativity is and isn’t. It explains some different types of

creativity and how they are used. This source will help me break down the creative process as I

am making BARD. This source will also help me with explanations in papers. This was written

in 2016 so it is very recent. Matiniano is a Ph.D. candidate who triple majored in English

Philosophy and Studio Art. He specializes in many subjects one of which includes creativity. His

college majors give him the credibility to write a journal about creativity. The only slant in this

work is introduced when he explains his views of the types of creativity. He backs up his views

with explanations which gives the work more credibility. His works cited is filled with other

sources about creativity so I could search for more information there.

Barrington, Luke, et al. “Game-Powered Machine Learning.” Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 17, 2012, pp. 6411-

6416. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41588543.

This journal details a process of teaching AI by having human players play a game

answering questions that guide the AI on the right path using the data that the humans

gave it. This process is similar to the way that I want to teach my AI. The source includes

graphics and process charts that can help me structure my program. This journal was

published in 2012 so its information is still pertinent and useful. According to his

LinkedIn profile, Barrington has a Ph.D. in machine learning and has been involved in the
technology business for a very long time which gives him the authority to write this

journal. Barrington’s piece includes no bias as he is only reporting on a process and type

of machine learning, there is no place for bias in a piece such as this. This source’s

bibliography pointed me to a few other machine learning principles and techniques which

may prove to be useful.