The fear of change is natural human behavior. Greek philosophers feared widespread use of writing and scripture in ancient times. The Catholic Church feared widespread access of English translated bibles. Many feared the use of search engines and their ability to put all known information on one platform. Today, anyone with a connection to the internet can access a generative artificial intelligence and generate an essay in seconds. The tech has caused wide-spread fear across the globe. What are the unintended consequences? How will humanity change? Is the technology too dangerous as a public commodity? Just how futile is attempting to prevent AI from growing? What should we expect moving forward with AI at the forefront of society? Will the tools help or hurt the creativity of everyday writers in society?
The fear surrounding generative AI is completely warranted. The harmonious marriage of advanced coding software with machine learning only understood by a sliver of the population, makes the tech feel alien to most. Many fear the overuse of these generative AI tools will lead to a flooding of the internet with non-human scripture. One such backer is Matthew Kirschenbaum. Writing in for the Atlantic, Kirschenbaum writes, “It is easy to imagine a set-up wherein machines could prompt other machines to put out text ad infinitum, flooding the internet with synthetic text devoid of human agency or intent: gray goo, but for the written world” (Kirschenbaum). He urges us to take into consideration the implications of generative AI. In a world full of pre-generated templates created by computers, examples of creative writing would all but vanish, harming the overall creativity for society. Kirschenbaum complicates matters further when he writes, “writing is often unglamorous. It is a labor; it is a job that has to get done… that enormous mid-range of workday writing-content-is where AI is already starting to take hold” (Kirschenbaum). The essence of the argument is that Humanity’s natural urge to cut corners will lead to the downfall of creative, original writing on the internet. By focusing on potential dystopian futures for AI-integrated society, Kirschenbaum overlooks the deeper problem of fully understanding how AI meshes with society in the first place.
Artificial intelligence has existed for over 70 years now, and throughout that time, a minute number of researchers outside the development of these AI tools understand the inner workings of AI. One such researcher is Dr. Mark Sample of the Davidson College English department. Through his studies, he has concluded that “the way it’s [AI] portrayed in the media, is not how it is in real life.” (Sample), And that “Your AI is Human every step of the way” (Sample). Dr. Sample’s point is that AI uses large language models to rearrange what has already been written by humans to synthesize new essays that fit the context of a prompt. AI seems a lot less scary when understood as a program using predisposed templates to create essays based off patterns in existing human text. Dr. Sample further eases your conscious when he puts into scale the vast amount of human labor needed to keep these AI tools up to date and filtered with accurate and appropriate sources as he proclaims on the internet “the best is there, but the worse is also there” (Sample). The knowledge that generative AI is completely reliant on human control and can’t run unsupervised, takes away the dystopian element seen in Kirschenbaum’s writing. If Sample’s findings are right about the inherent humanity within these AI tools, as I think they exist, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that AI will lead to the downfall of authentic writing.
The proposition that AI tools should be banned or even regulated for proper use cannot be taken seriously from a realistic standpoint. The accessibility to AI could never permeate a widespread suppression of the tech. The question is, will AI destroy human communication, or elevate creativity? Although I disagree with much that Kirschenbaum says, I fully endorse his conclusion that the use of AI tools will result in an increase of more formulaic, mundane writing made by those who abuse the tech. I find his cautionary tales impactful and thought-provoking, but not realistic. On the other hand, I agree that AI understood correctly, is a remixer of what has already been written, making for a powerful tool in the arsenal of a writer looking for fresh perspectives and creative twists in their writing. The technology will be both used and abused, but the former will add to the great works of history, whilst the latter will simply add to the noise of uninspired writing. I would much rather learn and adapt to the new AI world as opposed to fighting progression.
Works Cited
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “Prepare for the Textpocalypse.” AI Ushering in a Textocalypse , Atlantic Media Company, 8 Mar. 2023, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/03/ai-chatgpt-writing-language-models/673318/.
Dr. Mark Sampler, professor of digital studies at Davidson College , “presentation on AI research ” Writing 101 lecture, Building stories with Dr. Suzanne Churchill, Davidson, North Carolina
Mr. Micheal Spradlin, Teacher of AP World History 10 at Cave Spring High School, “presentation on history regarding humanity’s past fears” Roanoke, VA (September 2022)
Honor Code Pledge
“On my honor I have neither given nor received unauthorized information regarding this work, I have followed and will continue to observe all regulations regarding it, and I am unaware of any violation of the Honor Code by others.”
This essay sets up a critical conversation, and I like how you start out by saying that people have always tended to fear progress. The examples you give in your introductory paragraph (Greek philosophers, Catholic Church…) fit well, and it is easy to understand how they relate to the topic of AI. I think you want to make the point that it is human nature to fear progress, and by including Dr. Sample’s explanation of how AI language models work, you want to show that AI is human at its core, too. I also like how, in the essay, you agree and disagree (“Although I disagree with much that Kirschenbaum says, I fully endorse his conclusion that […]”), which is not an easy task. The summaries of Sample’s and Kirschenbaum’s ideas about AI are well done, and I like how you start to really enter the conversation and give your own opinion in the last two paragraphs.
If I could point out some areas of improvement, I would say the essay could have a more precise thesis. The questions you ask in the first paragraph are all thought-provoking, and I believe they are very important questions to ask, but maybe you could cut down on the questions a little bit. That would give you space to formulate a clear thesis, not as a question but as a statement, so you don’t keep the reader guessing too much. The last sentence in your conclusion has a very clear message that reflects your opinion (adapt to change instead of fighting it), so maybe you could include part of that message in your introduction and refer to it throughout the essay. Some minor inconsistencies I noticed were the spelling of widespread (widespread vs. wide-spread), and the switching of pronouns. For example, in paragraph three, you suddenly address the reader using “you” as a pronoun (you’re conscious), and later in the paragraph, you address the reader using “we.” I hope I could offer you some helpful feedback! Keep up the good work! 🙂