This month’s question reminds me of a conversation I had with a college professor last spring. He expressed profound disappointment that students use AI thinking they can bluff their way to good grades on their papers. He said he could usually tell when he read the final product. We talked about how, as AI takes a stronger hold in education and business, it will become harder and harder to discern the truth.
Honestly, since then I haven’t delved deep enough into the topic but here is my naive and uneducated take. Imagine
a piece of highway hotel room art. It fills a blank wall and brings color to a
room. Maybe it hides a stain. It’s utilitarian. That said, it’s more than
likely mass produced, whether by a machine or by someone creating the same
piece over and over. The piece may be technically proficient. Some people may
even like it. But it lacks depth and passion. It lacks emotion. It’s
missing finesse.
Recently an author I follow used AI to create a sample story
before critiquing it. The story was like the wall art. It had a beginning, a
middle and an end. It even had an arc. But it was plodding and definitely
without nuance. In my mind, a computer can't take the place of the intangibles inspired by our humanity (so far). Still, the exercise begs the question. Could a writer take a story
originally created via AI and flesh it out, tweak it, give it
subtlety and turn it into something that touches a reader? Could they use it as
a jumping off point to create a masterful novel?
I don’t know enough to know, and it feels like cheating to me. That said, I'm talking about fiction here, which is all about entertainment. Maybe we're simply encountering the newest way to do a thing. It doesn't feel right to me, but I have to ask myself. If the end product triggers emotions and the reader feels fulfilled by the experience of reading, does it matter how the story is produced?
I confess. Writing this month's essay kind of felt like bluffing my way through a college paper without having done the reading (no AI involved). I am aware there are deeper issues related to the recently resolved writer's strike, labor questions, and the threat of AI eliminating jobs. I'm simply not well-read enough on the topic to address them. Keep that in mind and don't be too hard on me in your comments.
15 comments:
You bring up some good points. It is like those hotel paintings. Lacks soul.
No, these are totally valid points. Not sure about using it as a jumping off point either because even if the result can entertain and delight a reader, I'd have a nagging suspicion that it could have been even better if the writer had done it without "help". Also, the market is so saturated that having the ability to produce more quickly is not necessarily good - but conversely, maybe "nonassisted" writers would then stand out more... This debate could definitely go on and on!
I agree with your points. Some professors are going back to the blue books for exams to avoid cheating using it. But I do think it's a tool for some tasks. But even with them, the writing needs human checking, editing, and writing.
I think you make valid points, and your experience with that story is research. :)
I like your comparison to a generic mass-reproduced piece of wall art. A dime a dozen and unremarkable. It feels like cheating to me as well and I would never use it. My writing is all human. Me, myself, and I all the time. (As my sister once called her three friends)
I think we're just seeing the tip of what AI will be able to do as it evolves. It's already proven that it can learn. Hope there's a place for human writers forever.
If you use Siri or Alexa or SatNav you are using AI. AI will certainly continue to develop but it will not replace humans.
People are already using AI to 'cheat' in varying ways. I worry that as the technology gets better, it will push out writers who are on the edge.
The thing with AI is that there is no "set and forget". There has to be a real person behind the prompts at the beginning (at the very least). And that's where the creativity comes in. The rest is editing and style and that human touch that sets a story apart.
I agree with you and I've read a bit more about AI. It's been featured in Time Magazine, Atlantic (long discussion with Sam Altman a founder), etc. I think the writers had very valid points for striking in regards to the AI issue. Yes, it produces work, BUT.... creativity, soul, deep thinking and characters. Yikes! It's a scary world.
Very helpful analogy to hotel art. If AI didn't have the capacity to teach itself, I wouldn't worry. Maybe I'd find programs like ChatGPT, but I have this nagging feeling that you are right. We should worry!
I think we need that human touch in creative arts. I haven't played with AI and have no intention to do so at this point. I like playing with the words instead!
AI lacks heart and doesn't "understand" nuance. I think you'd have to feed it enough information (but where is that info coming from?) for it to have something to spit out. But I don't know, I haven't asked it to write a story for me.
I think you make some good points here, though I sympathize with your feeling like a student faking it through a paper (I used to be pretty good at writing essay exams full of BS). I don't know enough to fully judge, either, but it feels both wrong and threatening to have AI write the first draft. Not to mention taking away the funnest part of writing, for me!
Liza, you bring up valid and well thought out points. I believe that no matter what AI comes up with, it will lack the most important part, the human soul. I can see where it may pop an idea off but it cannot duplicate human emotion. I don't know a bunch about AI but that is on purpose. I love writing because I enjoy the human response, whether it is positive or negative. I should research AI more to be informed but the bigger part of me doesn't care to.
Post a Comment