*Disclaimer - Not written with ChatGPT!
A few months ago, by coincidence, I was finally introduced to the world of ChatGPT – or in layman’s terms artificial intelligence. It was at a copywriting workshop that our tutor demonstrated how he uses the infamous function to assist with their writing. While many of us left the class with laughs, the humour quickly simmered down to a sombre tone when we pondered on our future in writing.
When ChatGPT started bubbling in our conversations and headlines – I was partially nervous at the implications it would have for our industry, especially when a few months prior artists were expressing breaches of intellectual property with AI generating art styles mimicking theirs without consent. If it could be done for art, it wouldn’t be surprising to see a similar bot developed to write, but I grimaced at the effects it would have on writers.
I don’t want to undermine those who introduced the use of AI into our world especially when it has been constantly proposed and imagined through various narratives (have you seen Her?). It’s also another mechanism of democratisation in design, where the function is to assist those who may not have the confidence to construct their thoughts. What concerns me is those who frequently use these tools without thought and understanding the lessons generated from these programs are prone to underappreciate the skills of those who have spent many years shaping their craft.
Recently on The New York Times’s The Daily Podcast Episode “The Writers’ Revolt Against A.I. Companies” – I was intrigued by the conversation between Michael Barbaro and Sheera Frenkel on the mechanics of artificial intelligence. Well-renowned writers are concerned about their work being scraped (bots screening and learning) without consent. It’s understandable that to improve, one needs to absorb various resources, yet it’s equally concerning where another can request the bot to generate a piece while replicating under the voice of another. It’s not just screenwriters and authors who are expressing their worries, but also hobbyists (i.e. fan fiction writers) who discovered that their imaginary characters are being memorised and learned by the AI. Like Sarah Anderson’s NYT opinion piece on having her art being replicated by the bot - the thought of someone taking a piece of yourself and being replicated mindlessly feels equally violating and unsettling.
While I understand the concerns over intellectual property and creative licences are the evident tension, my additional weariness is knowing the appropriate times of when to use the device. It is knowing the extent of when to use it in a professional setting. At this stage, there is still a lack of full transparency on the data collected from the conversations we have with the bot and what companies could do with that information. I’m hesitant to ask a third-party bot to summarise texts that feel all too confidential. I’m also alarmed towards those who have relied heavily on ChatGPT to write reports for them while being put under a tight deadline.
And there’s something else that I’m not comfortable with AI either. Which is latching onto the culture of immediacy and instant gratification – something I see as a core problem in our society. The need to be efficient and have things on demand completely undermines the awareness of the time and effort creatives spend to master their craft. Of course, sometimes we can be efficient where we need to be, but there are times when I strongly believe that taking time is equally important to form an appreciation of one’s workmanship.
How can I stress this with confidence? Because earlier this year, my writing was snubbed by someone who was in favour of simply using the AI device. Call me petty, but it felt like that person had wholly disregarded my years of efforts in building a writing profile, and the opportunity to grow.
Once – I was proposing my future writing studio subject to two colleagues who are advocates for ChatGPT. They asked how I would feel if students used ChatGPT. My response was simply this “I don’t mind if they use it at the start of the semester, but I’ll be very disappointed in them if they are still using it towards the end”. Why? For someone who once heavily used Grammarly to improve their writing, I gradually used it less as I was absorbing lessons from their editing (especially when it was interactive). With that experience, I hope they could experience a similar journey where they could form an appreciation of what it means to craft a sentence in our world. I hope that they too, can learn from the assisted device to craft their own voice. I hope that they too, can build their own writing identity.
Thinking back to the podcast discussion and knowing that there are mentions of governments and companies trying to regulate the use and data mining on these artificial devices – I am hopeful that there will be some form of protection for creatives in this industry. Albeit, I don’t know if it’ll slow down society’s deep addiction and craving for efficiency.
As for me, I don’t know when I’ll decide to log into the popular tool (apart from Grammarly) – I think when the time comes it’ll come… For now, I’ll just focus on writing the sentences that come floating to me.
Because at the end of the day, it’s my words, my identity, and my own self.
Related works: Democratisation in Design I: A Code’s Accessibility, Implications and Precautions (2019); Democratisation in Design II: Attitudes of Applied Design Independence (2019)
References:
Anderson, Sarah. “The Alt-Right Manipulated My Comic. Then A.I. Claimed It”. The New York Times. 31 December, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/31/opinion/sarah-andersen-how-algorithim-took-my-work.html?login=email&auth=login-email (Accessed 02 January, 2022).
Purtill, James. “How ChatGPT and other new AI tools are being used by lawyers, architects and coders”. ABC News. 25 January, 2023. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-01-25/chatgpt-midjourney-generative-ai-and-future-of-work/101882580 (Accessed 25 January, 2023)
New York Times, hosted by Barbaro, Michael. “The Daily: The Writers’ Revolt Against A.I. Companies” Produced/written/directed by Toeniskoetter, Claire; Szypko, Rob; Zadie, Mooj. Podcast Title. 18 July, 2023
Jelly Pinch (@jellypinch_official). 2022. "Part 1 of 3. I tried to simplify things as best I could because it seems a lot of people just don’t know…” Instagram, December 5, 2022. https://www.instagram.com/p/Clw9mz2P1I-/?igshid=NzZhOTFlYzFmZQ==
This entry is written on the lands of the Wurundjeri Country of the Eastern Kulin Nation..