AI is incredibly useful. Seek something via AI and ye shall always find. Don’t expect any wit or humour, AI certainly doesn’t provide that - unlike you, Jonathan! But it delivers facts and sometimes views re possible options which, albeit in a soulless, bland and slightly spooky kind of way, has some benefit. Even my GP used AI in the background when I went to see him the other day - he asked for my consent, of course, but I could only see upside.
But one thing is absolutely clear - AI can never be a substitute for the Bleating Goat! 😊
What do you mean "we 'will' become idiots"? I think that as with most things in our life at least, it boils down to choice, time and money..
Idiots who are by far the majority will prefer AI - like a MacDo or any fast food chain, it's effortless, quick and handy and, undiscerning, they wouldn't care if what they read or listened to were human or not.
- Our increasinly time pressured lifestyle and trying to rake through 100s of articles fake or not, makes people also turn to it for speed
-Money - it is costing this world enormous amounts to sustain it, as you say and our own selfish indolence will carry on demanding it, even when we are gasping for water!
As you know, I defend High Art to the hilt - but you yourself have said I'm a minority and it's down to supply and demand..non?
Thanks Cristina. The idiots comment was to do with our increasing tendency to outsource anything requiring mental effort to AI. It’s fairly predictable what the consequences of that will be. The main point of my article was that there is still for now a discernible difference between human and AI writing and that human writers need to lean into that so that (some) people still appreciate the difference.
I’ve enjoyed our high art discussion. I’m not on the same high culture plane as you but I do agree that some subsidy should exist so that people without means should have some access to high culture. Though most people won’t want it, some will and it will enrich their lives immeasurably.
Yes, I realised you meant outsourcing - it's already increasingly happening and I can't see it stopping..I think what I meant to compare is that you maybe now begin to appreciate how any human writing is quickly joining the ranks of High Art..and how most people don't care about either!
I enjoyed this, Jonathan. I did spot the early part was AI - maybe partly because I suspected that would be part of the joke, but also because it very subtly did not sound like the real 'you'. But this seemed really a more serious piece than usual anyway - and I agree with you that we writers must hold the line, although I fear already the slippage in trust from the public has begun. AI has many uses, but as Ken Woffenden says in this thread, it doesn't provide wit or humour - or even accuracy if you are researching something! For the latter reason I never use it for research, even though search engines now routinely service it up first. Anything that carries a caveat that it might be wrong can't be trusted for correct information. It seems to me that those who do trust it are either foolish or lazy. And the environmental costs are huge, which doesn't make sense when we (or some of us anyway) are trying desperately to save the planet.
Thanks Jane great comment. AI is incredibly convenient and helpful for trivial matters but it can’t be fully trusted for research I agree. It can’t write decent prose yet that’s for sure. Though maybe it will before long, but it’s crucial writers don’t get lazy and start using it or else everyone will start believing that all writers are frauds.
I find myself strongly anti-AI when it is associated in any way with the Arts, and especially writing/reading, but I am less anti when it comes to other uses. For example, I have found it useful and accurate for medical-type information (and I speak as an ex nurse and academic of blah years). I totally understand the hatred for it from those engaged in a living that uses the creative written word, and I know from experience how ubiqitous it can be for students. I really fear the lack of critical thinking it may lead to, although, as you say, so many people don't read at all that perhaps AI won't make that much difference. People who already read and write seriously will continue to do so and maybe it will 'improve' the accessibility' to the written word for others? You can see that I am clutching at straws here.
Thanks June. I find it useful and fascinating in general terms. As for writing, it can help with research and make suggestions for content, but never actually write it. Not if you’re a self-respecting writer. More generally, many of us seem to be outsourcing critical analysis to it. The more we outsource the more our own skills will wither, which is a bit worrying for the future. We will all become a bunch of idiots totally reliant on it!
AI is incredibly useful. Seek something via AI and ye shall always find. Don’t expect any wit or humour, AI certainly doesn’t provide that - unlike you, Jonathan! But it delivers facts and sometimes views re possible options which, albeit in a soulless, bland and slightly spooky kind of way, has some benefit. Even my GP used AI in the background when I went to see him the other day - he asked for my consent, of course, but I could only see upside.
But one thing is absolutely clear - AI can never be a substitute for the Bleating Goat! 😊
What do you mean "we 'will' become idiots"? I think that as with most things in our life at least, it boils down to choice, time and money..
Idiots who are by far the majority will prefer AI - like a MacDo or any fast food chain, it's effortless, quick and handy and, undiscerning, they wouldn't care if what they read or listened to were human or not.
- Our increasinly time pressured lifestyle and trying to rake through 100s of articles fake or not, makes people also turn to it for speed
-Money - it is costing this world enormous amounts to sustain it, as you say and our own selfish indolence will carry on demanding it, even when we are gasping for water!
As you know, I defend High Art to the hilt - but you yourself have said I'm a minority and it's down to supply and demand..non?
Thanks Cristina. The idiots comment was to do with our increasing tendency to outsource anything requiring mental effort to AI. It’s fairly predictable what the consequences of that will be. The main point of my article was that there is still for now a discernible difference between human and AI writing and that human writers need to lean into that so that (some) people still appreciate the difference.
I’ve enjoyed our high art discussion. I’m not on the same high culture plane as you but I do agree that some subsidy should exist so that people without means should have some access to high culture. Though most people won’t want it, some will and it will enrich their lives immeasurably.
Yes, I realised you meant outsourcing - it's already increasingly happening and I can't see it stopping..I think what I meant to compare is that you maybe now begin to appreciate how any human writing is quickly joining the ranks of High Art..and how most people don't care about either!
I enjoyed this, Jonathan. I did spot the early part was AI - maybe partly because I suspected that would be part of the joke, but also because it very subtly did not sound like the real 'you'. But this seemed really a more serious piece than usual anyway - and I agree with you that we writers must hold the line, although I fear already the slippage in trust from the public has begun. AI has many uses, but as Ken Woffenden says in this thread, it doesn't provide wit or humour - or even accuracy if you are researching something! For the latter reason I never use it for research, even though search engines now routinely service it up first. Anything that carries a caveat that it might be wrong can't be trusted for correct information. It seems to me that those who do trust it are either foolish or lazy. And the environmental costs are huge, which doesn't make sense when we (or some of us anyway) are trying desperately to save the planet.
Thanks Jane great comment. AI is incredibly convenient and helpful for trivial matters but it can’t be fully trusted for research I agree. It can’t write decent prose yet that’s for sure. Though maybe it will before long, but it’s crucial writers don’t get lazy and start using it or else everyone will start believing that all writers are frauds.
I find myself strongly anti-AI when it is associated in any way with the Arts, and especially writing/reading, but I am less anti when it comes to other uses. For example, I have found it useful and accurate for medical-type information (and I speak as an ex nurse and academic of blah years). I totally understand the hatred for it from those engaged in a living that uses the creative written word, and I know from experience how ubiqitous it can be for students. I really fear the lack of critical thinking it may lead to, although, as you say, so many people don't read at all that perhaps AI won't make that much difference. People who already read and write seriously will continue to do so and maybe it will 'improve' the accessibility' to the written word for others? You can see that I am clutching at straws here.
Thanks June. I find it useful and fascinating in general terms. As for writing, it can help with research and make suggestions for content, but never actually write it. Not if you’re a self-respecting writer. More generally, many of us seem to be outsourcing critical analysis to it. The more we outsource the more our own skills will wither, which is a bit worrying for the future. We will all become a bunch of idiots totally reliant on it!