Why Are People Defending AI-Assisted Writing?

Perhaps they’ve got nothing to say

Whatever you write, you generally say something about yourself and what you’re thinking. Even if it’s a little ditty about your summer holiday or your child’s first day at school. There’s something of you in it.

It’s why we write.

So imagine getting AI to write about your child’s first day. How insulting would that be to the child? That an AI story was the best you could do? Is that how much you care?

There’s been a lot on Medium recently about AI and ChatGPT. Some of which are probably far-fetched, some of which are probably true. I haven’t used ChatGPT, but I have used Jarvis.

I wrote a test piece with it to see if it could write humor/satire. It failed miserably. It missed the point that while I was being serious, I was also poking fun at what I was being serious about.

Some people are defending AI writing, and maybe for bland copy content, it’s fine. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about writing with meaning.

Can a machine do that?

Or are we just being groomed to expect bland content from now on? Content that doesn’t poke fun at politicians or billionaires.

Stuff like: The South African-born tycoon recently enjoyed a plate of poached salmon and asparagus while playing on his new toy Twitter.

AI couldn’t have written that though — too sarcastic. I wrote that because that’s how I write. It’s part of my personality. Flawed yes, but that’s who I am.

‘What’s your personality ChatGPT?’

‘Er, I’m a robot. Like the ones in Star Wars but not as clever.’

Talking of Star Wars. Eric Pierce, editor and founder of the pop culture publication Fanfare, sums this up perfectly in his publication's official stance on AI Stories.

I recently received an application for entrance into the hallowed ranks of Fanfare writers that was clearly AI-generated. The hallmarks are pretty obvious to spot — a glaring lack of humor or humanity. The article was just an arrangement of words. It had no soul. Rejecting that “writer” was easy. Harder was the realization that this is now a problem I need to address head-on.

He goes on:

1. Any aspiring writers who submits AI content will be barred at the gates like the uncivilized barbarians they are.

2. Any current Fanfare writer that submits an AI-generated story will likewise be shown the exit. No second chances, no redos. That may sound harsh but I want to be completely clear on this.

I couldn’t agree more, and it’s pleasing to see other publications are taking a similar line.

But not all. Indeed, Medium’s official policy on the matter set out on 26 Jan states:

We welcome the responsible use of AI-assistive technology on Medium. To promote transparency, and help set reader expectations, we require that any story created with AI assistance be clearly labeled as such.

I think this is weak. And while they do say that they may review it, it’d be good to start harder, and go softer, rather than the other way around. Like a referee at a football match. Get tough at the beginning to avoid a full-scale riot at the end.

Makes sense: if you support Leeds Utd as I do…

So how can editors check?

The same company that created ChatGPT, has also created an antidote, or ChatGPT checker. I haven’t used it, so I don’t know how well it works, but it seems a possibility.

Furthermore, any editor worth his or her salt should be able to spot AI-assisted writing. In addition, I’m hoping readers will be able to aid editors and perhaps flag pieces clearly written by AI.

I must point out at this point that I’m not totally against this technology. I’m not a Luddite. I’m part of the whole tech explosion. I’m 48 — I was there at the beginning (almost). I used BBC micros in 1981!

It was pointed out to me that AI-assisted writing is just a step up from grammar and spell checkers that we already use.

I disagree.

When Samuel Johnson published his dictionary it didn’t destroy the art of writing. It enhanced it. Spell and grammar checkers, which are still woefully imprecise, are likewise just an aid. Just like word processors were when they came out. They took away the more arduous elements of writing — like editing and checking spelling. But they didn’t take away the central premise that if you want to write, you have to sit down and do the hard work.

If a machine replaces that, then the craft is finished. Because as Eric Pierce said in his piece.

I take great pride in my ability to create a piece of work out of nothing. It’s a kind of magic. It really is.

I couldn’t agree more.

Thanks for reading, for more lies, check out