If you’re free at 9:30am PST and interested in care and the economy, RSVP for this online conversation I’ll be having with Heather Boushey, one of the smartest economic minds in the nation and a member of the Biden administration.
I've read a bit about the benefits of Chat GPT, e.g., it can help K12 teachers differentiate reading passages for students. I'm sooooo not sold though because as a former educator and recent but former college adjunct professor, I see the dangers. For one, as you pointed out, something is missing from the Chat GPT-generated "Courtney" paragraph, and to me that something feels like the writer's soul and humanity.
My thought (for now) about the impact of AI on my particular writing trajectory is this: my writing is relational (which is why I am all in on Substack). It's not the best writing in the world, nor the most literary, and my thinking isn't necessarily revolutionary. But my work is human, conversational, and in service of interconnection. AI can't replace that because my writing isn't "content," and my newsletter isn't a product. I mean, it kind of is, because it (optionally) involves the exchange of money. I hope it will someday provide a meaningful part of my income. But I see (free or paid) subscription as an act of reciprocity, not a transaction. Not every reader wants that kind of connection -- they just want to pay for some useful writing, which I totally respect. But I'm betting that many people want more: to connect and belong and support spaces (and writers) that allow for that.
This is really interesting Asha. I think part of what is amazing and frightening about AI is that it does, theoretically, have the capacity to be relational. What that relationality looks like is still TBD. AI certainly knows how to learn, which is a relational act in so many ways.
Indeed. And I’m admittedly pretty naive about that. I grew up in the Bay Area going to the Exploratorium, where I met ELIZA, one of the super early chat bots. It was nuts! Like a computer therapist! So I get that uncanny “relational” thing on some level.
I am with Aarthi in not thinking the AI paragraph sounds like you.
I have little experience with the technology, but the examples I have seen of AI copying writers have always fixed on repeated vocabulary, sentence structure, and topics of focus and then really overused it all. It is like a caricature in which a person is represented as all ears, all nose, or all forehead. Or like a Warhol with too many Marilyns.
That said, it might be useful for writers to see what AI does in copying them, because some writers might not notice that the are over using a structure readers might come to find off-putting. An example for a less mature writer might be too many sentences starting with I. I can think of a few writers whose content I like very much but whose writing in other respects sometimes makes me groan for the overuse of certain words or aspects of structure.
On a separate subjects, a bit over 25 years ago I was part of a negotiating team for labor contracts for school teachers and parapros. The negotiating style was not called Common Interest Bargaining, I don't think, but it was something like it. The head negotiator was named Lizanne Lyons.
As soon as I read the title, I answered an emphatic "no!" Having read your newsletter, and having played around with ChatGPT. And sure enough, even the GPT trained on your writing is a much blander version. It doesn't pop with anything unexpected or sing the way your other writing does.
One of my favorite rules is "if the title of a piece is a rhetorical question, the answer is NO!" and guess what... that rule holds here! Take that, AI! Courtney's out here smelling blueberry cobbler!
Chat GTP! Thanks for planting the urge to try! My granddaughters have set an example by using AI but I needed more encouragement, so now Courtney's endorsement makes it irresistible.
Love, truth, compassion, social justice, the challenges posed by systemic racism and sexism: the issues seem unlimited to explore. DD
I completely agree with Aarthi. Nothing of the body in AI version. Sense, smell, movement, change of tone, texture, rhythmic shift, pause, lilt, humor, emotion. And grateful to hear that AI can be "harnessed for good, reducing the administrative burden, also known as cognitive load, on so many people—particularly caregivers, those who have historically had to navigate bureaucratic government systems etc." Interesting too that the recent Harvard class reunion revealed a leap in transparency. See Shilpa Jain's Two Worlds Collided. Do you know her? Does AI engender transparency? Nope. The future is also calling for more embodiment. Interesting that the AI surge and Embodiment movement will need each other.
Fwiw what the AI wrote didn’t sound like you to me at all
Good to know! Priti disagrees. Ha!
I've read a bit about the benefits of Chat GPT, e.g., it can help K12 teachers differentiate reading passages for students. I'm sooooo not sold though because as a former educator and recent but former college adjunct professor, I see the dangers. For one, as you pointed out, something is missing from the Chat GPT-generated "Courtney" paragraph, and to me that something feels like the writer's soul and humanity.
My thought (for now) about the impact of AI on my particular writing trajectory is this: my writing is relational (which is why I am all in on Substack). It's not the best writing in the world, nor the most literary, and my thinking isn't necessarily revolutionary. But my work is human, conversational, and in service of interconnection. AI can't replace that because my writing isn't "content," and my newsletter isn't a product. I mean, it kind of is, because it (optionally) involves the exchange of money. I hope it will someday provide a meaningful part of my income. But I see (free or paid) subscription as an act of reciprocity, not a transaction. Not every reader wants that kind of connection -- they just want to pay for some useful writing, which I totally respect. But I'm betting that many people want more: to connect and belong and support spaces (and writers) that allow for that.
This is really interesting Asha. I think part of what is amazing and frightening about AI is that it does, theoretically, have the capacity to be relational. What that relationality looks like is still TBD. AI certainly knows how to learn, which is a relational act in so many ways.
Indeed. And I’m admittedly pretty naive about that. I grew up in the Bay Area going to the Exploratorium, where I met ELIZA, one of the super early chat bots. It was nuts! Like a computer therapist! So I get that uncanny “relational” thing on some level.
I am with Aarthi in not thinking the AI paragraph sounds like you.
I have little experience with the technology, but the examples I have seen of AI copying writers have always fixed on repeated vocabulary, sentence structure, and topics of focus and then really overused it all. It is like a caricature in which a person is represented as all ears, all nose, or all forehead. Or like a Warhol with too many Marilyns.
That said, it might be useful for writers to see what AI does in copying them, because some writers might not notice that the are over using a structure readers might come to find off-putting. An example for a less mature writer might be too many sentences starting with I. I can think of a few writers whose content I like very much but whose writing in other respects sometimes makes me groan for the overuse of certain words or aspects of structure.
On a separate subjects, a bit over 25 years ago I was part of a negotiating team for labor contracts for school teachers and parapros. The negotiating style was not called Common Interest Bargaining, I don't think, but it was something like it. The head negotiator was named Lizanne Lyons.
Thanks for the tip on common interest bargaining! Not a phrase I've heard.
I looked it up. It was called 'interest-based bargaining.'
Thank you!
As soon as I read the title, I answered an emphatic "no!" Having read your newsletter, and having played around with ChatGPT. And sure enough, even the GPT trained on your writing is a much blander version. It doesn't pop with anything unexpected or sing the way your other writing does.
One of my favorite rules is "if the title of a piece is a rhetorical question, the answer is NO!" and guess what... that rule holds here! Take that, AI! Courtney's out here smelling blueberry cobbler!
Hahaha!
Chat GTP! Thanks for planting the urge to try! My granddaughters have set an example by using AI but I needed more encouragement, so now Courtney's endorsement makes it irresistible.
Love, truth, compassion, social justice, the challenges posed by systemic racism and sexism: the issues seem unlimited to explore. DD
I completely agree with Aarthi. Nothing of the body in AI version. Sense, smell, movement, change of tone, texture, rhythmic shift, pause, lilt, humor, emotion. And grateful to hear that AI can be "harnessed for good, reducing the administrative burden, also known as cognitive load, on so many people—particularly caregivers, those who have historically had to navigate bureaucratic government systems etc." Interesting too that the recent Harvard class reunion revealed a leap in transparency. See Shilpa Jain's Two Worlds Collided. Do you know her? Does AI engender transparency? Nope. The future is also calling for more embodiment. Interesting that the AI surge and Embodiment movement will need each other.