An absolutely fascinating read, Terry! Tonnes to think about!
I feel the AI reviews in your comparisons do the job, but not a very interesting version of it. A review is pretty much by definition a person's view on a thing: a book, a film, an experience - and without the writer's personality coming through then there's something missing. In contrast, your reviews were bursting with personality, and much more dynamic. You're geeing people up to read - or not! - the writing in question, and I'm more likely to listen to a strong opinion than a wishy-washy sit-on-the-fence one.
Thanks, Rebecca. I agree about strong opinions. I often read the book reviews in The Critic, and they're hilarious -- though I daresay not if you happen to be the author. One review began, "This is the worst book on education I have ever read.", and the review went downhill from there!
Thought-provoking, Terry! As it often does, my mind slid into the music lane, and wondered if there was a musical equivalent of soulless AI writing. Sure enough, gotta go with the recent and current over-reliance on the electronic in music: Drum machines, synth sequencing, and, of course, Auto-tune, all of which rip the heart, soul, and talents from the output of the human musician!🎼🎵🎶🎹🎤👍
Too true, Brad. But also -- and I would love to read an article by you on this -- what about those algorithms that analyses what all the past decade's hits have in common and then seek to write a song based on the findings. That seems to me the ultimate in cynicism and soullessness.
Yep, I've heard a little about those music algorithms, and you're right....they're no less cynical and soulless as the prose algo! But (and thanks for your encouragement in that direction), I'd rather write about the original music I "grew up" with, and know, rather than spend time (and ink) on the fake!
100%. The less light we give to and the less of our precious consciousness and creativity we spend on all that is soul-less and algorithm-driven, the better. A good analogy would be, just think how much better off our society would have been had a certain orange-haired ex-pres not been given QUITE so much media coverage.......... in fact, any at all
I agree with the sentiment that we should give less of our attention to soulless things. I don't agree with denying people the right to have media coverage, even though I share your views as they pertain to a couple of incessant whingers!
I hear you... however in this case it's not denying a person the right to media coverage; that's routinely done by the powers that be to anyone deemed too inconvenient or outright threatening. No no, in this case the media were cynically thrilled to have their ratings ignite, at the expense of an entire society's worth of democracy. So one must weigh that silly idea of "fair and balanced" reporting against real balance, and real reporting.
>> "In my opinion, any writer that could be replaced by AI probably should be."
Exactly. It will likely weed out the hacks. For those concerned AI might replace their writing one day: learn how to write better, more engagingly, and elicit emotions in a way only humans can do - thus far.
You are probably right, Terry. I hope you are. Unfortunately, though, we have no idea what AI might be capable of ten years from now. Regardless of its progress, I find it unlikely AI will ever conjure anything Proustian. Neither will it write another "Wasteland" or "Flowers of Evil", either.
In principle and theory, I'd agree. From a seasoned writer's perspective, most of the so-called content that's online now is not the greatest quality, not the deepest or most enlightening thought, not the most ground-breaking or thought-provoking. They're recycled words and headlines engineered for clicking. I'd be thrilled to take them all to Burning Man and have a fiery farewell celebration.
But the issue runs deeper than that... the motive for all this content is ofc money. That's why the publishers of that content (typically companies) pump so much of it out, to feed the SEO engines and be the first to serve it on all those channels to all those eyeballs. It is becoming life-critical to maintain spaces like these within the data desert encroaching upon human thought.
Well, I can't argue with that Birgitte, so it seems to me that as the genie is out of the bottle and Pandora's box well and truly opened, we need to make sure that kids in school understand the issues. I'm not greatly optimistic about that happening, given that teaching kids about how to stay safe online is an uphill struggle. But I remain optimistic. Once people 'taste' real quality they won't want the boring stuff. Also, those of us who CAN write should be able to command pretty decent fees for quality work :-)
In Michael Frayn's brilliant satire "The Tin Men" (1965) scientists at the William Morris Institute of Automation attempt to teach computers to write newspaper articles.
Yes. I have to say that that would explain why some news articles are about as interesting as the text on the side of a packet of cornflakes. Mind you, I can see that an editor might be tempted to use ChatGPT to write some articles in order to free up their journalists to focus on others
Thoroughly enjoyed your reviews! They have personality and take unexpected turns in arriving at their conclusions. The ChatGPT reviews are adequate, but are bland, formulaic, and predictable. They remind me of the lame book reports I'd do in school for books I either didn't read or enjoy. They would satisfy the teacher and get a passing grade, but everyone was happy when the assignment was over and could throw the thing in the trash.
Thanks, JM. Thoroughly agree with your last sentence. Your commen t has made me think: the bane of my life as a teacher was writing reports. Wouldn't it be great to get AI to do it?! I tried getting ChatGPT to write a school report for me but it just said: "I'm sorry, but I don't have any information about a person named Terry Freedman. In order to write a school report, it would be helpful to have specific details about the subject, such as their background, accomplishments, and relevant information about their field of study or area of expertise. Without this information, I am unable to write a school report." How lame. At least as a teacher if I didn't know a kid I'd fill the report up with generic phrases!! 😂 🤣
I think AI can be dangerous if you think about it. Everyone thinks AI is going to replace humans. On some things that may just happen. But with writing I don't think that would be wise. As far as your book reviews, you actually read the book. I don't see how AI can represent what the book was about if it didn't read it. I would trust your reviews over Ai any day. AI is not going to know the intricacies that a human would.
This brings up another quandry. If I go out and read someone's review of a book, how do I know it is their true review and not them putting it through an AI program? I don't.
Thanks, Matthew. I think you're right about trust. Regarding your second para, you've hit the nail on the head. But it also links to the first point: I would say that a writer who "writes" a book review by getting AI to do it has cheated, but more than that, has betrayed the reader's trust. I remember someone saying to me a few years ago that the review he'd written about some piece of technology or other was done by trawling Google for reviews written by other people and then cobbling bits from them. He didn't actually try out the tech himself. I was scandalised. To my mind, he did the same thing as could be done with ChatGPT or other AI, only more labour-intensively. But trust-breaking is trust-breaking, whether it's done fast or slow.
I agree completely. Your reviews are better! Thank goodness.
I do think the chatGPT and its successors -- look for GPT-4 in the next couple of months -- will change the way that writers write and people learn. I'm afraid of the consequences of both, mainly because writing seems to accrue and become better the more you do it. When a writer casts aside boring bits of a piece of fiction -- say, background information of a setting or something -- some piece of the imagination in the writer's mind also takes leave. The same for learners, old and young, I think. I have used writing as a way to help students move through difficult thinking and to arrive (I hope) at clearer understanding. A sort of structured and public doodling to work things out. Though most of the prose isn't suitable for publication, it sets ways more clearly and it opens thought to considered exchange. (Many of my assignments are brief letters on paradoxical topics or difficult texts.)
ChatGPT and its ilk will likely become a co-author in many places. I've even seen a couple of articles that see developing a skill of using AI for prose as a "differentiator" for job-seekers.
I like your idea of structured doodling very much.
I think a lot will depend on how people think of it. I have met teachers who declare that their students don't need to know any facts, because all they have to do is google what they want to know. I say to such people, "How will your students know what to google in the first place then? Also, how will they evaluate what they find?"
I saw a useful comment in the paper today. A headteacher in the UK has asked the government to step in and do something (what?) about ChatGPT because they're worried that students will use it to generate essays. My own view is that (a) if you're setting essay questions that can be answered by ChatGPT maybe you need to ask different ones, and (b) how come your teachers can't tell that an essay written by ChatGPT doesn't have the same tone etc as the student usually has? But someone commented that a really good use of ChatGPT by teachers would be to get the students to analyse and mark the essays "written" by ChatGPT, which I think is a great idea: think of the rich class discussions that could be had. What do YOU think?
Now, I'm not fishing for compliments, but WHY do you think my reviews are better? Glad you do by the way: it would have been worrying had you thought the opposite!
I think you're right about ChatGPT or its successors being used as a kind of writing partner.
Why better? Because there's a voice that's fresh and the situates a reader in a new place, almost from the first words. And they take a stretch of imagination that chatGPT just doesn't have. Yet.
I wonder if human writers might be more daring or take on topics that have a higher orbit over regular ol' reality. I also wonder if AI voices might just eventually devolve into monotonous Gradgrinds as the text they consume are increasingly salted by other AI-generated words. Ouroboros effect.
PS thank re voice. I like your expression "situates the reader in a new place". If I've understood it correctly, I think that is definitely something that AI can't do. Yet.
Well, that's interesting, Mark. I asked it to write a review of a fictitious book, and it write a passable article, apart from the fact that it contained a lot of repetition, very little of substance, and a lot of contradictions. What I thought of doing at the time was getting it write the book, and then review it. Here's the review if you're interested: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/book-review-dispatches-from-the-chalkface
An absolutely fascinating read, Terry! Tonnes to think about!
I feel the AI reviews in your comparisons do the job, but not a very interesting version of it. A review is pretty much by definition a person's view on a thing: a book, a film, an experience - and without the writer's personality coming through then there's something missing. In contrast, your reviews were bursting with personality, and much more dynamic. You're geeing people up to read - or not! - the writing in question, and I'm more likely to listen to a strong opinion than a wishy-washy sit-on-the-fence one.
Terry: 1
AI: 0
Thanks, Rebecca. I agree about strong opinions. I often read the book reviews in The Critic, and they're hilarious -- though I daresay not if you happen to be the author. One review began, "This is the worst book on education I have ever read.", and the review went downhill from there!
Thought-provoking, Terry! As it often does, my mind slid into the music lane, and wondered if there was a musical equivalent of soulless AI writing. Sure enough, gotta go with the recent and current over-reliance on the electronic in music: Drum machines, synth sequencing, and, of course, Auto-tune, all of which rip the heart, soul, and talents from the output of the human musician!🎼🎵🎶🎹🎤👍
Too true, Brad. But also -- and I would love to read an article by you on this -- what about those algorithms that analyses what all the past decade's hits have in common and then seek to write a song based on the findings. That seems to me the ultimate in cynicism and soullessness.
Yep, I've heard a little about those music algorithms, and you're right....they're no less cynical and soulless as the prose algo! But (and thanks for your encouragement in that direction), I'd rather write about the original music I "grew up" with, and know, rather than spend time (and ink) on the fake!
100%. The less light we give to and the less of our precious consciousness and creativity we spend on all that is soul-less and algorithm-driven, the better. A good analogy would be, just think how much better off our society would have been had a certain orange-haired ex-pres not been given QUITE so much media coverage.......... in fact, any at all
I agree with the sentiment that we should give less of our attention to soulless things. I don't agree with denying people the right to have media coverage, even though I share your views as they pertain to a couple of incessant whingers!
I hear you... however in this case it's not denying a person the right to media coverage; that's routinely done by the powers that be to anyone deemed too inconvenient or outright threatening. No no, in this case the media were cynically thrilled to have their ratings ignite, at the expense of an entire society's worth of democracy. So one must weigh that silly idea of "fair and balanced" reporting against real balance, and real reporting.
I can't argue with that, Birgitte. Not enough real reporting these days in my opinion.
Fair enough,Brad.
>> "In my opinion, any writer that could be replaced by AI probably should be."
Exactly. It will likely weed out the hacks. For those concerned AI might replace their writing one day: learn how to write better, more engagingly, and elicit emotions in a way only humans can do - thus far.
I agree, Corey. Although you write "so far", I'm not sure AI will ever reach the same literary heights of our greatest wordsmiths.
You are probably right, Terry. I hope you are. Unfortunately, though, we have no idea what AI might be capable of ten years from now. Regardless of its progress, I find it unlikely AI will ever conjure anything Proustian. Neither will it write another "Wasteland" or "Flowers of Evil", either.
I agree, Corey. So far, no matter how sophisticated AI is at 'writing ' stuff, there always seems to be something missing.
In principle and theory, I'd agree. From a seasoned writer's perspective, most of the so-called content that's online now is not the greatest quality, not the deepest or most enlightening thought, not the most ground-breaking or thought-provoking. They're recycled words and headlines engineered for clicking. I'd be thrilled to take them all to Burning Man and have a fiery farewell celebration.
But the issue runs deeper than that... the motive for all this content is ofc money. That's why the publishers of that content (typically companies) pump so much of it out, to feed the SEO engines and be the first to serve it on all those channels to all those eyeballs. It is becoming life-critical to maintain spaces like these within the data desert encroaching upon human thought.
Well, I can't argue with that Birgitte, so it seems to me that as the genie is out of the bottle and Pandora's box well and truly opened, we need to make sure that kids in school understand the issues. I'm not greatly optimistic about that happening, given that teaching kids about how to stay safe online is an uphill struggle. But I remain optimistic. Once people 'taste' real quality they won't want the boring stuff. Also, those of us who CAN write should be able to command pretty decent fees for quality work :-)
Thanks for subscribing to mine, Birgitte, I only just noticed! Looking forward to discussing this further with you
Pleasure Terry. Have a steaming cup of English tea for me till our next chat! :)
That is a given, Birgitte. My body is a finely-honed machine that is lubricated by tea.
I agree, Corey. That's what I'm relying on at least!
Sadly a lot of blog posts from the last decade look like they were written by an AI engine.
In Michael Frayn's brilliant satire "The Tin Men" (1965) scientists at the William Morris Institute of Automation attempt to teach computers to write newspaper articles.
Thanks, Paul. Another one for the tbr list!
and "news articles" as well...
Yes. I have to say that that would explain why some news articles are about as interesting as the text on the side of a packet of cornflakes. Mind you, I can see that an editor might be tempted to use ChatGPT to write some articles in order to free up their journalists to focus on others
🤣
LOL. I agree, Mark! Imagine how awful a writer would feel if people thought their articles had been written by AI!
Thoroughly enjoyed your reviews! They have personality and take unexpected turns in arriving at their conclusions. The ChatGPT reviews are adequate, but are bland, formulaic, and predictable. They remind me of the lame book reports I'd do in school for books I either didn't read or enjoy. They would satisfy the teacher and get a passing grade, but everyone was happy when the assignment was over and could throw the thing in the trash.
Thanks, JM. Thoroughly agree with your last sentence. Your commen t has made me think: the bane of my life as a teacher was writing reports. Wouldn't it be great to get AI to do it?! I tried getting ChatGPT to write a school report for me but it just said: "I'm sorry, but I don't have any information about a person named Terry Freedman. In order to write a school report, it would be helpful to have specific details about the subject, such as their background, accomplishments, and relevant information about their field of study or area of expertise. Without this information, I am unable to write a school report." How lame. At least as a teacher if I didn't know a kid I'd fill the report up with generic phrases!! 😂 🤣
Haha, the AI needs to learn how to BS! ;-)
🤣
LOL
I think AI can be dangerous if you think about it. Everyone thinks AI is going to replace humans. On some things that may just happen. But with writing I don't think that would be wise. As far as your book reviews, you actually read the book. I don't see how AI can represent what the book was about if it didn't read it. I would trust your reviews over Ai any day. AI is not going to know the intricacies that a human would.
This brings up another quandry. If I go out and read someone's review of a book, how do I know it is their true review and not them putting it through an AI program? I don't.
Thanks, Matthew. I think you're right about trust. Regarding your second para, you've hit the nail on the head. But it also links to the first point: I would say that a writer who "writes" a book review by getting AI to do it has cheated, but more than that, has betrayed the reader's trust. I remember someone saying to me a few years ago that the review he'd written about some piece of technology or other was done by trawling Google for reviews written by other people and then cobbling bits from them. He didn't actually try out the tech himself. I was scandalised. To my mind, he did the same thing as could be done with ChatGPT or other AI, only more labour-intensively. But trust-breaking is trust-breaking, whether it's done fast or slow.
I agree completely. Your reviews are better! Thank goodness.
I do think the chatGPT and its successors -- look for GPT-4 in the next couple of months -- will change the way that writers write and people learn. I'm afraid of the consequences of both, mainly because writing seems to accrue and become better the more you do it. When a writer casts aside boring bits of a piece of fiction -- say, background information of a setting or something -- some piece of the imagination in the writer's mind also takes leave. The same for learners, old and young, I think. I have used writing as a way to help students move through difficult thinking and to arrive (I hope) at clearer understanding. A sort of structured and public doodling to work things out. Though most of the prose isn't suitable for publication, it sets ways more clearly and it opens thought to considered exchange. (Many of my assignments are brief letters on paradoxical topics or difficult texts.)
ChatGPT and its ilk will likely become a co-author in many places. I've even seen a couple of articles that see developing a skill of using AI for prose as a "differentiator" for job-seekers.
Nice to see your voice, Doc. Keep it clear.
Thanks, Mark.
I like your idea of structured doodling very much.
I think a lot will depend on how people think of it. I have met teachers who declare that their students don't need to know any facts, because all they have to do is google what they want to know. I say to such people, "How will your students know what to google in the first place then? Also, how will they evaluate what they find?"
I saw a useful comment in the paper today. A headteacher in the UK has asked the government to step in and do something (what?) about ChatGPT because they're worried that students will use it to generate essays. My own view is that (a) if you're setting essay questions that can be answered by ChatGPT maybe you need to ask different ones, and (b) how come your teachers can't tell that an essay written by ChatGPT doesn't have the same tone etc as the student usually has? But someone commented that a really good use of ChatGPT by teachers would be to get the students to analyse and mark the essays "written" by ChatGPT, which I think is a great idea: think of the rich class discussions that could be had. What do YOU think?
Now, I'm not fishing for compliments, but WHY do you think my reviews are better? Glad you do by the way: it would have been worrying had you thought the opposite!
I think you're right about ChatGPT or its successors being used as a kind of writing partner.
Why better? Because there's a voice that's fresh and the situates a reader in a new place, almost from the first words. And they take a stretch of imagination that chatGPT just doesn't have. Yet.
I wonder if human writers might be more daring or take on topics that have a higher orbit over regular ol' reality. I also wonder if AI voices might just eventually devolve into monotonous Gradgrinds as the text they consume are increasingly salted by other AI-generated words. Ouroboros effect.
PS thank re voice. I like your expression "situates the reader in a new place". If I've understood it correctly, I think that is definitely something that AI can't do. Yet.
Well, that's interesting, Mark. I asked it to write a review of a fictitious book, and it write a passable article, apart from the fact that it contained a lot of repetition, very little of substance, and a lot of contradictions. What I thought of doing at the time was getting it write the book, and then review it. Here's the review if you're interested: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/book-review-dispatches-from-the-chalkface