Many people are talking about advancements and dangers in A. I. these days, so I felt I ought to express my own thoughts. Well, to start, perhaps like me, a lot of people imagine A. I. as depicted in the movies when they first hear it. Certainly, I’ve always hoped that’s something we will never see. There are some things, I feel, that ought to never be discovered. Like Dr. Malcolm in the film Jurassic Park pointed out, humanity should not be so focused on whether they could that they forget to think if they should.
That being said, a difference has been pointed out between creative and editorial A. I. And certainly, I am not a supporter of the former. It devalues the hard work and effort real people put into the words they type and the stories they create entirely out of their own imagination. I watch a lot of documentaries about lives of writers, in which I learn of the trials and tribulations they went through, because it not only fascinates me how they came up with their stories, but also gives me comfort to know that I am not alone in what I have gone through.
As for editorial A. I., as a tool, it potentially can be helpful. I’ve seen how MS Word’s editorial features, and it has helped me fix a lot of things. But it’s best to remember that it is a tool, not a guideline to follow to the letter. I’ve noticed that not everything highlighted as a mistake is an actual mistake, and just because it is highlighted doesn’t mean that a writer has to change it. And certainly not all features have to be used. Humans can choose not to. For one, I do not use Copilot.
Sometimes one editorial program will highlight something as an error or a potential error that another won’t. Plus, human eyes can detect things about a story that machines are incapable of noticing. My own judgment is still important, as is a real editor’s. Editorial A. I. would have a field day with Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, yet the way language is used is one of the things that makes it special.
Technology can certainly be beneficial for writing. I remember writing long hand, and I am grateful for computers and how they make editing easier than by hand or with a typewriter (though at times I have wondered it would be like to type on one). But it is a double-edged sword. It was shameful to hear about how A. I. has pirated authors’ works to improve itself.
I certainly hope we don’t see machines replacing people, nor churning out books like in Nineteen Eighty-Four. While it seems advancements in A. I. are here to stay and will continue to come, let us not forget that it should be a tool and not a replacement for human ingenuity or choice.
Andrew McDowell 