Read this right after reading a semi-viral LinkedIn post about how if you (the ephemeral you) are not using AI to do all your writing, you’re failing. Your article regenerated a bit of hope that had otherwise been aggressively drained from my body when I read that LI post.
Writing is about so much more than producing words; it’s critically thinking, researching, organizing thoughts, struggling, failing, trying again, editing, refining, etc. All skills that echo into our lives in a myriad of ways. We need to know how to write not so we can get leads or create useless filler content but so we can understand information and communicate clearly for ourselves and our communities.
Ugh. I reserve my writing for myself. It’s how I think and discover. It’s a sacred space for me, and I don’t need the noise of a chatbot.
And what kills is that AI influencers will say that this tech democratizes everything and personalizes everything, but then will turn around and call people fools if they aren’t using the AI programs in the exact same wag they are.
When my optimism peeks through my distress it often takes the form of a hope that the value of writing "for ourselves and our communities" will become clearer. Forms of writing aimed at selling me things I don't need or scaring me into clicking on links will be automated efficiently and in ways that will make it easier for us to screen them out.
I read a piece recently in a book called "Learning from Cheating" that suggested students are so used to sampling, forwarding, re-posting, re-using digital content that intertextuality IS their language. So they don't even think a) it's cheating or b) it's meaningless. Their endorsement counts as, let's say, "publishing." And that DOES mean they're not creating from the blank page. So I'm looking for the new launch-pad that compares to the blank page. I think that's where we're headed...a variety of launch-pads.
I think in the context of education, which is where you opening illustration comes from, it is just another step down this dark path we have been headed for a long time.
Somewhere, education became a business, as seen by the students, teachers, and (especially) the administrators. Once that shift happened, we've been moving farther and farther from teaching and learning.
How do we know it became a business (outside the obvious financial cues?) We have metrics, and standardization, both to "make things easier" and to be able to quantify things that aren't really that quantifiable. The "product" shifted from "learning" to "certification." We go to school to "get a degree" instead of "to learn about."
Employers want to see the degree on our resume. But they increasingly complain those holding them don't seem to know much.
AI "writing" is just another step on this path, I think. Here's this tool I can use to check this box more efficiently (an assignment) so I can finish the course and get the degree.
And, lest we forget, it's driven by money. Lots of investors are really hoping to turn a profit from all of the billions they have sunk in AI.
This is 100% true. This is part of a larger trajectory we've been in on for a while. And to really course correct, we'll need to get out of the transactional model of education.
Nice article, but can you really call out anyone for using AI to write when your thumbnail is clearly AI generated? Guess that AI is OK after all… but only when it helps with a skill that you don't have. “I worry about what this means for modern accountability” (and for the future of artists).
I apologize if the article was misleading. It’s actually not against AI use, at all. It’s a reflection on what happens when we participate in its use, and what is gained and lost. It’s important that I, too, participate in its use.
Definitely not calling anyone out! That would go against the point of the article.
I see, thank you for the clarification. The point about fair use of AI in art though still remains - artists have been complaining quite a lot about it, when it comes to fair use and lack of protection of their artwork. I know it's beyond the scope of your article, but I'd been interested in knowing what you think! :)
I make my living as a writer and I’d lose all of my clients in a nanosecond if I turned it fully AI work. It is NOT the same thing, though I guess it’s to be expected that some are out there beating the drum that it is. Tough to be a Lit Prof these days.
Yes, many say, "It's not the same." And as I teach critical thinking to my students, I want to ask and answer, "And?" Is "the same" what we need? I know *I* need it to keep my job. But I suppose you really mean "It's not as good as homemade." You might be onto something; we could possibly see a veering away from prepared and toward the satisfactions of self-made.
If you teach writing as a process and thus require students to "show their work" through scaffolded assignments, and if you assign writing that asks students what they think about something, then this approach wouldn't work as well. Though I also don't have any problems with students using AI to brainstorm, help revise, use grammarly, etc.
That is very true! I am a big believer in scaffolded writing and process-based teaching. And there is certainly a role for AI to play in that whole process.
I see a lot of similarity with our GPS systems - my daughter doesn't know geography in the Netherlands anymore because we always follow the GPS instead of planning our routes. I could also get lost without :). It use it and it also makes me feel uneasy because of the dependency on technology and the fact that basic knowledge gets lost.
This sort of thing has been happening for a long time. We have “complementary” uses of tech, where the tech augments us and we continue to have the skill we’re offloading. Then we have the “competitive” uses of tech, where using the tech gradually causes us to lose the skill. It seems clear that the use of GPS is in the competitive camp.
I don’t know if anyone knows which camp this sort of AI-assisted writing will fall.
What is different about you or me (writer, writing professor) and most of our Gen Ed students is that we care about the craft because we have elected to care about the things you post as essential to writing, but many students have not. It’s not a complaint or a put-down: they care about different things than we do. We will not convince them, at least not easily, to care as much as we do, so we need to keep looking for another shared reason to write ourselves instead of author with AI assistance.
There is definitely a disconnect here. I was talking to a student the other day, who was very honest. He doesn’t see the value in reading and writing, regardless of the topic.
I’ve noticed that in my classes more and more. I really can’t take for granted that a student sees reading and writing as valuable activities. I can try to convince them, but that often won’t work.
It’s tricky, because I want to make it relevant to them but I also think students can benefit from doing something that they don’t see as immediately valuable or relevant to their lives.
I’d be curious what he did see as a valuable way to express his thoughts? Did he see making videos as one; or did he want to give speeches? Or did he even ask himself these questions? Or perhaps does he think he has nothing of value to contribute to society? I’m curious
This feels like one of the fundamental questions posed by generative AI models. The other is whether we treat them as if they are human minds when we interact with them. That one seems like we're collectively answering yes to my dismay.
In the case of writing, it seems we lack a specific enough vocabulary to account for the difference in what it means to write using a pen, a typewriter, or a word processor (all of which are writing) with producing text outputs by prompting an LLM (something that many of us who are professionally and emotionally invested in writing think is not writing).
So, "authoring" and "writing from a distance" both point us in the direction of a new vocabulary, but I'm not sure either works to clearly distinguish what I take to be an inflection point in the development of "authoring technologies" from the eighteenth century to what is available today. For all the misplaced hype about AGI, the year 2022 changed something about culture. We need new concepts to talk about it.
I think the language is so slippery and new, and we just can’t get out feet planted. And of course, I think the powers that be will gladly define them for us.
LLM's make me see language's potential: what can be made of all these words and their meanings? It's NOT just alphabet soup. So somehow it doesn't matter to me, as a teacher, whether the bot is human-like. The meaning-potential is out there in the words and the syntax(es) we humans created. We will probably see a vivid return to reader-response criticism in this space, a capacity to articulate, when a student hands a paper in, why the *student* thinks it's good.
Sorry if this is a duplicate comment. One of my favorite sayings in recent years is from Joan Didion: "I write to find out what I think." Which is counter to writing at a distance.
Read this right after reading a semi-viral LinkedIn post about how if you (the ephemeral you) are not using AI to do all your writing, you’re failing. Your article regenerated a bit of hope that had otherwise been aggressively drained from my body when I read that LI post.
Writing is about so much more than producing words; it’s critically thinking, researching, organizing thoughts, struggling, failing, trying again, editing, refining, etc. All skills that echo into our lives in a myriad of ways. We need to know how to write not so we can get leads or create useless filler content but so we can understand information and communicate clearly for ourselves and our communities.
Sorry, I’ll give you your soapbox back 🫴
Ugh. I reserve my writing for myself. It’s how I think and discover. It’s a sacred space for me, and I don’t need the noise of a chatbot.
And what kills is that AI influencers will say that this tech democratizes everything and personalizes everything, but then will turn around and call people fools if they aren’t using the AI programs in the exact same wag they are.
When my optimism peeks through my distress it often takes the form of a hope that the value of writing "for ourselves and our communities" will become clearer. Forms of writing aimed at selling me things I don't need or scaring me into clicking on links will be automated efficiently and in ways that will make it easier for us to screen them out.
I'm with you!
I read a piece recently in a book called "Learning from Cheating" that suggested students are so used to sampling, forwarding, re-posting, re-using digital content that intertextuality IS their language. So they don't even think a) it's cheating or b) it's meaningless. Their endorsement counts as, let's say, "publishing." And that DOES mean they're not creating from the blank page. So I'm looking for the new launch-pad that compares to the blank page. I think that's where we're headed...a variety of launch-pads.
Interesting! I’ll have to take a look at that book!
This is intriguing. I’ll look into this idea, the students perception that they are ‘not cheating’, and wll check out the book. Thanks.
I think in the context of education, which is where you opening illustration comes from, it is just another step down this dark path we have been headed for a long time.
Somewhere, education became a business, as seen by the students, teachers, and (especially) the administrators. Once that shift happened, we've been moving farther and farther from teaching and learning.
How do we know it became a business (outside the obvious financial cues?) We have metrics, and standardization, both to "make things easier" and to be able to quantify things that aren't really that quantifiable. The "product" shifted from "learning" to "certification." We go to school to "get a degree" instead of "to learn about."
Employers want to see the degree on our resume. But they increasingly complain those holding them don't seem to know much.
AI "writing" is just another step on this path, I think. Here's this tool I can use to check this box more efficiently (an assignment) so I can finish the course and get the degree.
And, lest we forget, it's driven by money. Lots of investors are really hoping to turn a profit from all of the billions they have sunk in AI.
This is 100% true. This is part of a larger trajectory we've been in on for a while. And to really course correct, we'll need to get out of the transactional model of education.
Nice article, but can you really call out anyone for using AI to write when your thumbnail is clearly AI generated? Guess that AI is OK after all… but only when it helps with a skill that you don't have. “I worry about what this means for modern accountability” (and for the future of artists).
Thanks, Ira!
I apologize if the article was misleading. It’s actually not against AI use, at all. It’s a reflection on what happens when we participate in its use, and what is gained and lost. It’s important that I, too, participate in its use.
Definitely not calling anyone out! That would go against the point of the article.
I see, thank you for the clarification. The point about fair use of AI in art though still remains - artists have been complaining quite a lot about it, when it comes to fair use and lack of protection of their artwork. I know it's beyond the scope of your article, but I'd been interested in knowing what you think! :)
It's important for teachers and college faculty to encourage creative problem-solving and writing that is based in original analysis.
https://janetsalmons.substack.com/p/communicate-your-insights?r=410aa5
Absolutely!
I make my living as a writer and I’d lose all of my clients in a nanosecond if I turned it fully AI work. It is NOT the same thing, though I guess it’s to be expected that some are out there beating the drum that it is. Tough to be a Lit Prof these days.
I agree with you, both in terms of them being different and how hard it is to be a Lit Prof!
Yes, many say, "It's not the same." And as I teach critical thinking to my students, I want to ask and answer, "And?" Is "the same" what we need? I know *I* need it to keep my job. But I suppose you really mean "It's not as good as homemade." You might be onto something; we could possibly see a veering away from prepared and toward the satisfactions of self-made.
If you teach writing as a process and thus require students to "show their work" through scaffolded assignments, and if you assign writing that asks students what they think about something, then this approach wouldn't work as well. Though I also don't have any problems with students using AI to brainstorm, help revise, use grammarly, etc.
That is very true! I am a big believer in scaffolded writing and process-based teaching. And there is certainly a role for AI to play in that whole process.
I see a lot of similarity with our GPS systems - my daughter doesn't know geography in the Netherlands anymore because we always follow the GPS instead of planning our routes. I could also get lost without :). It use it and it also makes me feel uneasy because of the dependency on technology and the fact that basic knowledge gets lost.
Absolutely!
This sort of thing has been happening for a long time. We have “complementary” uses of tech, where the tech augments us and we continue to have the skill we’re offloading. Then we have the “competitive” uses of tech, where using the tech gradually causes us to lose the skill. It seems clear that the use of GPS is in the competitive camp.
I don’t know if anyone knows which camp this sort of AI-assisted writing will fall.
Nice distinction!
I took it from somewhere. At the moment, I can’t remember where! But I’ll find it!
What is different about you or me (writer, writing professor) and most of our Gen Ed students is that we care about the craft because we have elected to care about the things you post as essential to writing, but many students have not. It’s not a complaint or a put-down: they care about different things than we do. We will not convince them, at least not easily, to care as much as we do, so we need to keep looking for another shared reason to write ourselves instead of author with AI assistance.
I think that’s a great point.
There is definitely a disconnect here. I was talking to a student the other day, who was very honest. He doesn’t see the value in reading and writing, regardless of the topic.
I’ve noticed that in my classes more and more. I really can’t take for granted that a student sees reading and writing as valuable activities. I can try to convince them, but that often won’t work.
It’s tricky, because I want to make it relevant to them but I also think students can benefit from doing something that they don’t see as immediately valuable or relevant to their lives.
Hm…
I’d be curious what he did see as a valuable way to express his thoughts? Did he see making videos as one; or did he want to give speeches? Or did he even ask himself these questions? Or perhaps does he think he has nothing of value to contribute to society? I’m curious
This feels like one of the fundamental questions posed by generative AI models. The other is whether we treat them as if they are human minds when we interact with them. That one seems like we're collectively answering yes to my dismay.
In the case of writing, it seems we lack a specific enough vocabulary to account for the difference in what it means to write using a pen, a typewriter, or a word processor (all of which are writing) with producing text outputs by prompting an LLM (something that many of us who are professionally and emotionally invested in writing think is not writing).
So, "authoring" and "writing from a distance" both point us in the direction of a new vocabulary, but I'm not sure either works to clearly distinguish what I take to be an inflection point in the development of "authoring technologies" from the eighteenth century to what is available today. For all the misplaced hype about AGI, the year 2022 changed something about culture. We need new concepts to talk about it.
I couldn’t agree more!
I think the language is so slippery and new, and we just can’t get out feet planted. And of course, I think the powers that be will gladly define them for us.
LLM's make me see language's potential: what can be made of all these words and their meanings? It's NOT just alphabet soup. So somehow it doesn't matter to me, as a teacher, whether the bot is human-like. The meaning-potential is out there in the words and the syntax(es) we humans created. We will probably see a vivid return to reader-response criticism in this space, a capacity to articulate, when a student hands a paper in, why the *student* thinks it's good.
The notion that this will return us to reader-response is insightful, but I suppose I would think that given that I never left it.
I’m with you, Rob!
> And as I wade through that minutiae, I will inevitably encounter new ideas that spring from my own brain.
Thank you for this. I'll add your piece to the end of my most recent one.
Sorry if this is a duplicate comment. One of my favorite sayings in recent years is from Joan Didion: "I write to find out what I think." Which is counter to writing at a distance.