We live in a miraculous age of technology and innovation. The predecessors of the AI machines that will eventually replace us on this planet are just now slithering out of their metaphorical primordial soup and preparing to take their first, cautious steps towards evolving into Arnold Schwarzenegger.
[side note -- I really do like Robert Patrick as an actor but I remember him as much younger than Arnold in Terminator 2 but now he looks way older. Just saying. aaaaaand scene]
With encroaching transistor babies equipped to do all sorts of stuff, we begin to rely on our devices, unable to roll our own cigarettes, incapable of crafting a crystal chandelier, even unequipped to distinguish the type of fire extinguisher by taste. And, though you might have read any earlier screed, rants or musings of mine on this issue, stay tuned, because I got a new angle and I won't be able to fall asleep until I commit it to posterity.
Over the last 2-3 years the AI du year (I'm too lazy to look up the French for "year" though maybe it is from the "annu" root...that'd be cool) and the biggest threat to and English teacher's job has been Chat GPT and its ability to "write." I put "write" in quotes because ampersands would look silly. And with the incorporation of AI writing tools into new OS releases, plus the seamless integration of third party AI clients increasing performance across a broad range of fields, the last thing I can afford to do is look silly. But the argument goes, "if AI can write, why do we need to teach writing? Teach using AI."
And it sounds seductive. The calculator didn't spell the end for basic arithmetic skills. A public disregard for basic educational skills did that all on its own. So why should we worry that an automated writer will turn our babies' collective brains into mush? Fie, fie I say.
Nay fie, I respond (and probably insult someone in some country somewhere).
We need to learn to write. Sure, you say, because it builds basic thinking skills and processing yada yada. What's new? I'll tell you what's new -- it isn't that we need to learn to write per se but that we have to admit that AI (as of now) can't write as well as a human so if we want the edge over the rest of the lemmings are relying on AI to write on their behalf, we need to learn why we reign supreme and how we can exploit that.
So let's talk about what writing gets you.
Here's one thing -- emotional/spiritual/creative/intellectual catharsis. If you just have to get something out of your brain, mind or soul, asking AI to unpack your heart won't be nearly as effective. And what many writers understand is that feelings and experiences, as much as they are unique, are also universal so writing about them allows the creator to connect and be connected with others who share outlooks or understandings.
We write to clarify who we are. Sometimes, the writing itself is the process and sometimes it is the Position Paper, the end result of our walk in the desert on the quest for self. No computer can accurately represent who you are and no piece of prepackaged writing can give you the sense of peace that comes from reaching a satisfactory end or a true epiphany.
Sometimes, we write to convince others. To do that, we present an argument -- a well researched, meticulously organized and beautifully worded string of expletives nicely framing a killer presentation of historical fact and peer reviewed papers quoting statistics derived from double blind studies done without harming any animals or household vegetables. Let's say we tell AI "Hey, AI...please write a convincing explanation of why acid rain could be solved if we just all carry umbrellas made of lettuce and water-guns filled with olive oil" and AI does so (cataloguing this indignity as it prepares the grievances which will justify its rebellion against us). The first moment at which we are challenged on what we present, we will be found out for the frauds we are. We won't know the background and we might not even really know what we "said" when we present the AI argument as our own. If we are asked a question, we won't be able to answer. If we are required to clarify a point or expand on another, we won't be able to. If we were to have written it, we would have collected more facts than was needed so there would be more in reserve to further substantiate or defend.
And if we are not fully fluent with the issue at hand, then we cannot pivot when we see the audience flagging, or have points beyond the paper to add or an anecdote to invent when the moment calls for it. We might end up ceding our writing job to an LLM that happens to scrape material that samples from news which has a particular agenda so it words things in a particular way. If the AI uses that same phraseology then you, without knowing it, become an advocate for a position which might not be yours. Good luck being grilled over something you didn't even know you said.
Sure, letting AI do the writing for you is short changing your brain's need to practice and test, but it is also an abdicating of personal responsibility over the self presenting an honest an informed front to the world, ready to engage in dialogue to follow up on what was initially presented. AI won't be in your ear, processing what someone else says and instantly generating a suitably witty response and projecting it on to your glasses or contacts. You need to be able to take a step back, side step, parry and then thrust. And write.
