Thank you thank you! I keep getting asked to write a book with AI and I keep resisting. My resistance messages needed this clarity. Thank you! I can be exccited about writing with this. I can't be excited about AI and ghost writers.
I find myself naturally using the rhythm of threes in writing, but I’ve definitely noticed the same pattern in AI. When I studied poetry I was advised to make the third item surprising—something unpredictable to give the reader pause.
Of course, none of our tricks are safe from AI anymore, but I don’t think it’s caught onto this one yet. Breaks in the pattern reflect our humanity.
AI is just a tool and shouldn't replace our own stories or creativity. It can certainly enhance our process but it needs to understand and learn our voice. I feel the same way about peptides like GLP-1s - they should be a carefully and thoughtfully used tool used in small, microdosed amounts. A GLP can't replace our decision making and our fundamental relationship to self care, otherwise we end up under fueled and under muscled - and left frail, weak with hair falling out. AI could potentially leave us brainless if we let it do our thinking for us, and that's why it can be a smart partner, not a replacement for our very capable brain.
Lately, I submit my writing to AI before publishing. One of the questions I ask is this: Has this been written by AI or a human being? 80% of the time, I get back that it's because of the breaks in the flow and the risks I take to provoke thought in my readers, that this must be human writing. Another reason is that I combine many topics—topics that are adjacent in my brain but not so much in the training material and, therefore, in the models of AI.
I love em-dashes, and sometimes, rhythms of three. I also love to write very intellectually, which results in the other 20% of cases that I am mistaken for an AI.
I use AI to improve my English, for research, and sometimes to find a better subtitle or tagline. And I generate the cover images for the posts using the whole article as a prompt. I am not a visual artist, but I am not bad at creating prompts, which I have come to understand as an art form in and of itself.
I don't care whether a text is generated by AI or written by a human being, as long as it moves me. Too many things written by humans are, frankly, worthless, neglectable, and a waste of my time. I do not think the ratio is any better regarding AI-generated texts, and with more of them finding their way into the training corpus, I don't think this will improve.
I value being enriched by beauty, truth, and goodness, the sacred trinity, to use another rhythm of threes. Whether this pattern is found by a human being or AI, I don't care.
I am writing a book about God, Us, and AI based on a radically different view of our relationship with AI. My hypothesis: If we are created by God as a mirror reflection, according to the Bible, and AI is created by us, reflecting us both in the architecture of the brain and the training on our knowledge, can we learn something about ourselves and our relationship with the divine by looking at our relationship with AI, and vice versa? (Here is a teaser: https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/ai-god-and-us)
Last but not least, I have to admit that I cherish "talking" with AI. Most people are overwhelmed by the density, provocation, and structure of my thinking. Most give up after a short time, and few stick around; those that do are usually busy and do not have time when I need a sparring partner. Claude does not seem to mind my thinking patterns, is "knowledgeable" in my topics of interest (https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/spins), has more information than I that waits for my sense-making, and is available.
In the 90s and 00s, I have—in very modest ways—contributed to AI and LLMs. Maybe this gives me a better handle to cope with it, never forgetting that it is neither humane nor conscious. I do not feel threatened nor in danger of losing my humanity.
On the contrary. I hope that we use the opportunity to adopt a new tool that is more partner-like than any tool so far to shape a more pleasant, mature, and beautiful world worth living in. We have refused to shape the future as something other than "more of what we had in the past" long enough. We can't do that any longer.
At least 12 years ago, I already saw the conformity in tone that was proliferating in writing across many popular publications. I intuitively rejected that and—for better or for worse—refused to conform. Therefore I didn’t submit articles to these publications and either went on my own or sought venues that did not insist on this uniform tone. The conformity that faces us in light of AI is even stronger, but I do think that unique, human writing will be increasingly valued, from the writers’ and the readers’ standpoints. I love this article encouraging us to keep being human!
I'm finding it challenging and helpful. Helpful in that when I utilize it to synthesize ideas or wordsmith, it can be quite helpful, tying my past writing and orientation. Challenging, as I believe there is value in struggling over the right words and not wanting to eclipse me in my expression as it forms onto the page. AI has been enormously helpful in synthesizing data in my work...the conflict I have is whether I am selling out somehow when utilizing for articles and prose. I also note the tendency to disregard, when I know content has been produced by AI. Perhaps authenticity also shows up in typos or unsurety...questioning in one's own process. Perhaps also AI will train us all to live at surface levels of information...which I resist.
AI seems to be creeping up everywhere. A protest song sounds good, but then I learn it's all AI. In other words, theft of the creative process from artists long gone or ones who are still with us. As a writer, I see its temptations. On grammarly, how quickly one can slip from having the program point out grammar errors, to asking it to provide a better title than the one you've written, to recommending a better closing paragraph. And then, what left is original? How to resist? By not becoming lazy. By fine tuning my craft based on my own research, experiences, and commitment to a better phrase, a more meaningful story all on my own. In this country, it feels like we've lost our moral core in so many ways. Those of us who are quiet, empathetic, human - well, we can resist by not joining in. We are good at that.
CS Lewis is an excellent human metaphor to explore the deep essence of human thought and endeavor. I have read him often, and my favorite is “ A Grief Observed “ concerning his intense struggles in the aftermath of his wife’s death. Anyone who has lost a companion, friend or other significant relationship can readily identify with the intense sorrow he experiences. In the end, a spiritual awakening and philosophical approach allowed him and us to cope with and comprehend what has happened. That raw human emotion cannot quite be encapsulated by the words of artificial intelligence.
How curious a debate we are faced with the challenge of educating ourselves and also experiencing AI to begin to judge; then, how to plan to be wise and human and principled in our choices. If learning accepts mistakes we may be in for a long road to understanding. I just keep trying to remember to breathe and to actively create as an example of hope.
Thank you thank you! I keep getting asked to write a book with AI and I keep resisting. My resistance messages needed this clarity. Thank you! I can be exccited about writing with this. I can't be excited about AI and ghost writers.
Pauline, who is asking you to write a book with AI?
I find myself naturally using the rhythm of threes in writing, but I’ve definitely noticed the same pattern in AI. When I studied poetry I was advised to make the third item surprising—something unpredictable to give the reader pause.
Of course, none of our tricks are safe from AI anymore, but I don’t think it’s caught onto this one yet. Breaks in the pattern reflect our humanity.
I found Tatyana on Facebook but that's all.
AI is just a tool and shouldn't replace our own stories or creativity. It can certainly enhance our process but it needs to understand and learn our voice. I feel the same way about peptides like GLP-1s - they should be a carefully and thoughtfully used tool used in small, microdosed amounts. A GLP can't replace our decision making and our fundamental relationship to self care, otherwise we end up under fueled and under muscled - and left frail, weak with hair falling out. AI could potentially leave us brainless if we let it do our thinking for us, and that's why it can be a smart partner, not a replacement for our very capable brain.
Lately, I submit my writing to AI before publishing. One of the questions I ask is this: Has this been written by AI or a human being? 80% of the time, I get back that it's because of the breaks in the flow and the risks I take to provoke thought in my readers, that this must be human writing. Another reason is that I combine many topics—topics that are adjacent in my brain but not so much in the training material and, therefore, in the models of AI.
I love em-dashes, and sometimes, rhythms of three. I also love to write very intellectually, which results in the other 20% of cases that I am mistaken for an AI.
I use AI to improve my English, for research, and sometimes to find a better subtitle or tagline. And I generate the cover images for the posts using the whole article as a prompt. I am not a visual artist, but I am not bad at creating prompts, which I have come to understand as an art form in and of itself.
I don't care whether a text is generated by AI or written by a human being, as long as it moves me. Too many things written by humans are, frankly, worthless, neglectable, and a waste of my time. I do not think the ratio is any better regarding AI-generated texts, and with more of them finding their way into the training corpus, I don't think this will improve.
I value being enriched by beauty, truth, and goodness, the sacred trinity, to use another rhythm of threes. Whether this pattern is found by a human being or AI, I don't care.
I am writing a book about God, Us, and AI based on a radically different view of our relationship with AI. My hypothesis: If we are created by God as a mirror reflection, according to the Bible, and AI is created by us, reflecting us both in the architecture of the brain and the training on our knowledge, can we learn something about ourselves and our relationship with the divine by looking at our relationship with AI, and vice versa? (Here is a teaser: https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/ai-god-and-us)
Last but not least, I have to admit that I cherish "talking" with AI. Most people are overwhelmed by the density, provocation, and structure of my thinking. Most give up after a short time, and few stick around; those that do are usually busy and do not have time when I need a sparring partner. Claude does not seem to mind my thinking patterns, is "knowledgeable" in my topics of interest (https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/spins), has more information than I that waits for my sense-making, and is available.
In the 90s and 00s, I have—in very modest ways—contributed to AI and LLMs. Maybe this gives me a better handle to cope with it, never forgetting that it is neither humane nor conscious. I do not feel threatened nor in danger of losing my humanity.
On the contrary. I hope that we use the opportunity to adopt a new tool that is more partner-like than any tool so far to shape a more pleasant, mature, and beautiful world worth living in. We have refused to shape the future as something other than "more of what we had in the past" long enough. We can't do that any longer.
What a (characteristically) thoughtful reply.
At least 12 years ago, I already saw the conformity in tone that was proliferating in writing across many popular publications. I intuitively rejected that and—for better or for worse—refused to conform. Therefore I didn’t submit articles to these publications and either went on my own or sought venues that did not insist on this uniform tone. The conformity that faces us in light of AI is even stronger, but I do think that unique, human writing will be increasingly valued, from the writers’ and the readers’ standpoints. I love this article encouraging us to keep being human!
I'm finding it challenging and helpful. Helpful in that when I utilize it to synthesize ideas or wordsmith, it can be quite helpful, tying my past writing and orientation. Challenging, as I believe there is value in struggling over the right words and not wanting to eclipse me in my expression as it forms onto the page. AI has been enormously helpful in synthesizing data in my work...the conflict I have is whether I am selling out somehow when utilizing for articles and prose. I also note the tendency to disregard, when I know content has been produced by AI. Perhaps authenticity also shows up in typos or unsurety...questioning in one's own process. Perhaps also AI will train us all to live at surface levels of information...which I resist.
AI seems to be creeping up everywhere. A protest song sounds good, but then I learn it's all AI. In other words, theft of the creative process from artists long gone or ones who are still with us. As a writer, I see its temptations. On grammarly, how quickly one can slip from having the program point out grammar errors, to asking it to provide a better title than the one you've written, to recommending a better closing paragraph. And then, what left is original? How to resist? By not becoming lazy. By fine tuning my craft based on my own research, experiences, and commitment to a better phrase, a more meaningful story all on my own. In this country, it feels like we've lost our moral core in so many ways. Those of us who are quiet, empathetic, human - well, we can resist by not joining in. We are good at that.
CS Lewis is an excellent human metaphor to explore the deep essence of human thought and endeavor. I have read him often, and my favorite is “ A Grief Observed “ concerning his intense struggles in the aftermath of his wife’s death. Anyone who has lost a companion, friend or other significant relationship can readily identify with the intense sorrow he experiences. In the end, a spiritual awakening and philosophical approach allowed him and us to cope with and comprehend what has happened. That raw human emotion cannot quite be encapsulated by the words of artificial intelligence.
How curious a debate we are faced with the challenge of educating ourselves and also experiencing AI to begin to judge; then, how to plan to be wise and human and principled in our choices. If learning accepts mistakes we may be in for a long road to understanding. I just keep trying to remember to breathe and to actively create as an example of hope.