AI is here to stay, like it or not
Auto-generated content has disrupted our world, infiltrated our devices and revolutionised the way we think and operate. It has been met with hesitancy and hostility for some, while the more dynamic, as well as the younger generation, have embraced it with open arms.
What jobs will it replace, how will it affect the critical thinking of our youth, and what role does plagiarism play? These common questions are still left unanswered.
The dust has settled and like an ink spill, AI writing isn’t going anywhere soon.
What we know about AI for sure:
· AI is here to stay.
· It is dynamic, versatile and can access information that the human brain is incapable of.
· It can generate information within seconds.
· It does not discriminate and only requires internet access.
While AI has been met with mixed emotions, the consistent message is that we need to start adopting it and take advantage of its benefits. It can be perfectly paired with human intervention to create a real masterpiece.
“Humans and ChatGPT working together could produce more than the sum of their parts.” — Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang
I have challenged Chat GPT to generate content based on the below spec. As a comparison, my own version has been written beneath it. To note, my version was written before I generated the AI version. Also to note: I do not profess to be a writer by any means, but rather a copy editor.
Chat GPT instruction: Write a 100-word article on AI writing and whether it should replace human intervention.
Version 1 (ChatGPT):
AI writing has revolutionized content creation, offering efficiency and scale. Its ability to generate coherent, contextually relevant text is remarkable, easing the burden on human writers. However, the question of whether it should replace human intervention remains contentious. While AI excels in tasks like data-driven reporting and repetitive content generation, it lacks human creativity, empathy, and nuanced understanding. Human intervention ensures authenticity, emotion, and critical thinking, elements vital for engaging and resonating with diverse audiences. Thus, a balanced approach integrating AI's strengths with human oversight is optimal, leveraging technology to enhance, not supplant, human expression and connection.
Version 2 (Me):
Artificial intelligence has burst onto the stage of the digital era, dressed as one of many technological breakthroughs. It has been applauded by those from all ages, backgrounds and industries. For those who are not versed in writing, it eases the pain of digging into the creative abyss. It is also a time-saver.
Is this what we want for our youth - to robotically regurgitate text without tapping into their creative skills? Literacy, along with critical thinking, is fundamental to education. Our youth is losing a skill fundamental to intellectual growth and development. I’ll leave you to choose, then.
I don’t necessarily want to compare the two versions, but what stands out is the more personalised style in Version 2. It would be easy to identify who wrote which one. ‘Revolutionized’ in Version 1 is Americanised and would need to be corrected to ‘-ise’ for the South African or British reader. The use of paragraphs in Version 2 also makes for a smoother read.
Both these versions have their place and their audience. I think it’s safe to say that AI is extremely effective, and it should be embraced, rather than batted. Human intervention is still a non-negotiable, not just for reference and data-checking, but also to add a sprinkle of human touch.
