Essay 1 – Revised

AI in Writing: Striking a Balance

In our study of AI, one idea we’ve heard many times surrounds the need to dive into AI research as AI is the future of our society and will eventually replace a lot of the menial tasks that people have to do now. In the words of Kyle Chayka, “It’s not hard to imagine a future in which every white-collar worker is equipped with such writing robots” (Chayka 3). Chayka’s thoughts about the movement of the business world towards AI have been seen all around writing. People use AI to complete small but important tasks, which underlie our society in ways that affect our daily lives. The gradual destruction of human created writing using AI will damage the understanding (ethos) created between author and reader.

Matthew Kirschenbaum’s arguments in AI Is Ushering in a Textpocalypse are particularly compelling. The idea of online text becoming meaningless seems all-too achievable; a scary subject knowing a great number of people rely on social media or online news sites to receive updates on current events. He discusses the idea that “you may not always be able to presume human authorship behind whatever it is that you are reading” (Kirschenbaum 2). The ideas presented here are fundamental because they destroy what is, in my opinion, the underlying foundation of our society as a whole. There exists an ethos (trust) in everything published, from social media posts to academic writing. As a reader, I would want to know where an author gets ideas. If the reality Kirschenbaum talks about becomes true, I would not trust the newsletter I get from my local newspaper the same way I do now. I trust local authors who understand my community. AI destroys that trust as it does not understand the context of life. It only has the limited description the user provides and the billions of words off of the internet. The machine cannot create the same trust and meaning a true writer is able to.

A similar idea is found in politics. Political speeches are meant to be created using the ideas of the politician for the people that he or she serves, even if the politician does not create the actual writing. Continued use of AI in this way would greatly harm the way that people receive information from their politicians, something that is already on shaky ground as it exists today. AI is unable to understand the intricacies of policy and disasters, as well as current events. If we were to allow AI to be used on a consistent basis, we risk further damaging local identity.

All of this is not to say AI has no foreseeable place in the future, it inevitably does. It is a concept I think many writers against AI frequently miss, including Kirschenbaum. We have to understand that AI isn’t going anywhere, even with its downsides. AI has ingrained itself into our culture, used to do everything from menial blurbs on the internet to real-life academic studies. While I disagree with the use of AI en masse, I also understand there is no perfectly defined role of the technology, the technology will be used for a niche specifically carved out for it. This niche needs to be one that protects the reader’s ability to understand an author, to be able to properly converse with an author.

Defenders of absolute AI use are contradicted by the simple idea of ethos. A great number of people rely on the credibility and context of the person who writes or speaks. AI, in my view, destroys a great deal of that notoriety of the author. Even minute changes in the wording of a sentence alters the overall message and connection every reader has with the author. If AI is allowed to dominate industry, it will destroy the connection between companies and their buyers as well as companies and their employees. If we, as a society, allow ChatGPT and other LLMs to dominate our writing, then we allow them to dominate our understanding of the world and its happenings.

Regulation, in my view, is key. We need to define our use of the technology in order to prevent the endless spam talked about in Textapokalypse. Regulation is able to protect the ethos of every author. What makes the conversation surrounding AI so complicated is the need to balance perspectives like Chayka, Kirschenbaum, and my own in this regulation. If we lose the connection between author and reader, then there is no point having articles or newspapers online, there is no point in having politicians take an active role in the lives of their constituents. A great deal of the reading experience is the knowledge that the author is someone with their own experiences and understanding that is almost having a conversation with the reader. An author is supposed to understand what is going on in their readers’ lives. This is what we risk losing if we allow AI to take over.

Honor Pledge TH

Works Cited
Chayka, Kyle. “My A.I. Writing Robot.” The New Yorker, 11 July 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/my-ai-writing-robot. Accessed 14 September 2024.
Field, Hayden, and MacKenzie Sigalos. “AI craze getting funded by tech giants, distorting traditional VCs.” CNBC, 6 September 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/ai-craze-getting-funded-by-tech-giants-distorting-traditional-vcs.html. Accessed 19 September 2024.
Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “AI Is Ushering in a Textpocalypse.” The Atlantic, 8 March 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/03/ai-chatgpt-writing-language-models/673318/. Accessed 14 September 2024.

Comments:

Jack:

Tate,

I enjoyed how you established a clear position in the conversation with contextualizing the conversation as a whole. It really placed your view in a larger context and lended significance to your essay.

In terms of things to work on, I think establishing that clear position earlier would help engage the reader. As I was first reading, I was left wondering how your position fit into the conversation until the end. Moving those strong claims up would help the reader get a little more of the “why” in your writing.

While I liked your overall contextualization of the argument, I think your individual quotes could use a little more structure around them. For example, the quote “It’s not hard to imagine a future in which every white-collar worker is equipped with such writing robots” felt abrupt to me. While you do elaborate on the quote later, its introduction felt rushed. Integrating those quotes a little more would make the piece feel more seamless and streamlined.

A question to consider: is there a way you could inject more of your voice into this piece? I like the technical summaries of AI’s societal role and your use of personal experience, but sometimes the writing feels forced. Maybe a personal anecdote about how you yourself have used AI in a balanced way without letting it detract from your credibility? Just something to ponder.

I loved reading your piece, and I look forward to seeing the next draft!

Nikita:

Tate,
I enjoyed reading your essay. The essay’s voice is strong, and I can see how much effort you contributed to this work. I suggest you improve clarity and coherence.

While sounding catchy, the first and second paragraphs are sort of confusing – I didn’t grasp your main idea. Maybe, you should combine the former with the latter and introduce your argument about balancing AI.

Maybe, it is due to my international nature but I find it difficult to get a full insight into some sentences. For example, in this sentence: “However, while AI offers numerous efficiencies for businesses, its increasing use threatens to undermine the credibility and connection between authors and their audiences,” you first write about businesses and then about threats to the writers. And, later, in the next paragraph you introduce the benefits of AI for writers.

Also, most of your I Say is at the bottom of the essay, and there is none in the beginning. Bringing those I Say to the front would give the reader a better understanding of why you are writing about balancing AI.