AI in Writing Statement

Phone with ChatGPT icon open and OpenAI logo behind the phone
Robot with AI label

AI and the rise of robotic, nonhuman writing evoke numerous concerns. Three stick out when exchanging the human writer for a machine: a passion for the subject, longevity, and serious citations/references to outside research. Unpredictability and natural sentiments represent inaccessible options, or perhaps “settings”, for a machine (AI). No matter what ChatGPT or the AI always working within someone else’s phrasing meaning they can never possess or develop an original voice. What this means is that the increased dependence on machines erases authentic speech because the models depersonalize and discourage in-depth and synthesized opinions based on other human sources.

Creativity represents one of the most essential traits in a quality expression of thought. Unlike humans, AI machines cannot possess feelings or natural reactions, crucial factors coinciding with personal interests. Since they only distribute words in a factual, mathematically oriented algorithm, emulating a deep passion or interest for the most specific subject, take for example non-English adaptations of Shakespeare or the faults of higher education’s acclaimed diversity. What distinguishes AI versus human voice in writing is an extraordinary perspective on a topic of interest, developed from creative, original thought. Sure, AI may produce a document at a faster rate or seem to be knowledgeable about an obscure topic except the desire to bring a fresh perspective remains out of reach for an AI’s language. With that, AI also discourages the collaborative aspect of art, written work, etc. since the human exchanges their fellow human voices for a machine.

Where citation and longevity concerns relate to AI because software inherently possesses short-term qualities compared to the thoughtful expressions of a human mind. For example, we as human beings have the choice to check how accurate our sources are, and secondly, store them in a place built to last: pen and paper, backup hard drive, what have you. In other words, trusting AIs to do the writing for us eventually crumbles, or already has if we think critically about their products, into a jumbled mess without thoughtful reference to other’s ideas and works. Not only that, but one without the permanence of a hard drive full of notes or a textbook which undergoes a peer review process checks and balances whether the work is original and refers to other’s works in a respectful and accurate manner.  

In the 21st century, preventing the development of automated software to take care of tasks for us in the blink of an eye is a dangerous idea. While highly regulated writing exercises—college, the workplace, and others— fall subject to this label of busywork, they do not have to be. Maintaining original voices apart from what an AI conveys matters because AI cannot emulate a human engagement with a subject; proper citation of sources, care for a topic, and genuine literacy. All of these distinguish human voices from what an apathetic AI machine will ever offer in their short-term lifetime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *