Opinion: AI doesn't make writing better. 'Letting a robot structure your argument. . .is dangerous.'

Photo by Robert Rieger, Connected Archives
via The New York Times

Nobody ever asks me about language. They ask the DeLillos and the Updikes and the Styrons, but they don’t ask popular novelists. Yet many of us proles also care about the language, in our humble way, and care passionately about the art and craft of telling stories on paper.
-- From On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

Now ask yourself: Could artificial intelligence ever make that observation? What does a robot know about language? Very little, and yet, no matter who is writing, a robot is reworking words and removing human originality from the page. In her opinion essay for The New York Times, Margaret Renkl eschews AI as a better way to write. Edited portions of her essay are shared below.

"Letting a robot structure your argument, or flatten your style by removing the quirky elements, is dangerous. It’s a streamlined way to flatten the human mind, to homogenize human thought. We know who we are, at least in part, by finding the words — messy, imprecise, unexpected — to tell others, and ourselves, how we see the world. The world which no one else sees in exactly that way.

"Sure, there’s a difference between writing a poem and cleaning up a garbled email, between writing a love letter and a Google ad. For some tasks, employing an A.I. assistant might save time without levying a commensurate cost in humanity. Maybe. . . .I’m still not sure."

Sometimes the need for a perfect word can send a writer on a deep dive for the exact word a phrase or verse needs. Renkl shares, "I was outside. . . sitting with my thesis director, the poet James Dickey. I remember that particular meeting because of one ill-chosen word. In a poem that was otherwise finished, a single adjective was clearly wrong. We batted alternatives back and forth across the desk, but none was right.

"Hours later, the right word came to me, popping up out of the depths while my mind was occupied with something else. It was so apt. . . I opened the phone book, and looked up Mr. Dickey’s number. When he answered, I said, ‘Pale.’ The word is ‘pale.’. . .Mr. Dickey was overjoyed about that word, every bit as jubilant as I was. If only for a moment, the world made a kind of sense it hadn’t made before."

''No robot may harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm' reads Isaac Asimov’s first law of robotics. But what if the existence of robots itself is what robs us of our humanity? Is that not a way of bringing humans to harm?"