Hey Alberto, I’m wondering if you might pen a post on the future of writing instruction based on these insights. Sort of a follow up to your summer posts on education. Would love to see what you have in mind!
Of course. I learned it. I think others have written about that much better than I ever could. But I can tell you that it can be learned (what you won't find is a precise manual or recipe for it - it's one of those things you only truly learn by doing). I wouldn't miss those resources, though. They can give you hints that might take you a while to figure out on your own.
The glaring truth is that AI tools have emerged and more advanced GPT tools will be created. They might make our deep thinking capability dull and uncreative but they will never replace our heart-to-heart conversations. They can only make our work efficient but they won't have the emotions that we have about each other.
On June this year, I delved into what will go wrong with us as AI continues to be developed. It is worrying when we let AI replace our precious asset - the mind. Check in the link below
I'd say it applies to every medium but not to every creative profession. I'm talking about my experience as a free Substack creator, if I was instead a freelancer then things would be different. I will write about this from that perspective.
All of us with an established voice will benefit, but starting fresh will be harder.
AI let's people like us distribute our voice and persona further, such as AI-generated voiceovers for our posts in our specific likeness: https://podcast.interconnects.ai/
Honestly, for me, I feel like AI is making me better (more interesting self-feedback, the ability to scale to multiple modalities like voice + images with a python script, and more self reflection about what the human element of writing is).
AI substantially adds to the noise at the bottom, so the barrier to entry is literally higher. Not sure it's an answer.
I think there is a difference between Gen AI prose and Gen AI themes and ideas. Gen AI is great at prose because it was trained strictly on words. Themes and ideas are a secondary emergence. Asking AI to write an article, I find, produces a largely superficial and straightforward article, with little to no original insights. An individual human has a unique vantage point from which to tell a story, which may be extremely relevant to the human experience. These are the ideas worth developing. Invoking the human spirits will otherwise need a more precise definition. I have no problem with using AI to help coauthor an article written around such themes, and then sprinkling in metaphors which make the piece more poignant.
Your points are very thoughtful and well taken, and your readers are more thoughtful and engaged than most. That said, please remember the first part of that truism: “You can fool SOME of the people, ALL of the time……” Unfortunately that fraction is now growing every day, and they will indeed be proving themselves to be fools once again. They are a dangerous lot, especially when their stupidity or ignorance is properly harnessed by convincing AI flooding the zone with passable shit. After all, we went to war in Iraq over a false story, created about false WMDs, told by an authority figure (Collin Powell) with mere depictions (drawings actually) of labs which ended up being entirely fabricated. That fooled “most of the people, some of the time”. Yet the agenda to invade was moved forward against more reasoned positions. The result: millions of lives lost over decades and trillions of dollars wasted. Corporations making colossal shitloads of money, if not outright siphoning money through corrupt practices. Meanwhile dumb fucks thought it was all about “freedom”. I made a pretty good living off those wars as a DHL contract pilot flying the mail into Iraq and Afghanistan. An old high school classmate once thanked me for “my service”. Stupid fuck.
AI is currently restricted from calling anyone a “dumb fuck”, even when they are! Imagine an AI that can eventually get away with that. They’re going to automatically sound much more human, especially if they can make a good case for it.
People were even fooled by Eliza when it debuted in the 1960s. Those dim bulbs will always lack the nuance of appreciating human written content and they’ll be completely taken in by processed crap. Not your readers per say, but large swaths of humanity who lack the sophistication or the desire to know any better. Some people absolutely LOVE processed foods, in spite of the fact that it degrades their health and ultimately quality of life, and can even shorten their lives. AI processed crap will have its own set of bad outcomes. A great many humans value lies above truth and authenticity. This will eventually be a colossal fuck’n problem.
"Any system which can provide the value we seek." That's where we disagree. No system other than a human can provide the value you seek. At least regarding writing.
You hit the nail on the head, Phil: It depends on what value one is seeking. But I defined the terms of the debate in my article! If you're *just* seeking info then you're not here, you're probably on Google or even ChatGPT. If you are seeking a connection with a human writer, an AI writing tool can't provide that. My argument is that humans want that kind of value that only humans can provide.
But I want to qualify that assertion by saying that I'm talking from my experience as a newsletter writer. If I was a freelancer, that would be a different story. But does AI really add a degree of difficulty to succeed as a freelancer that's significant in comparison with how hard it was in the first place? Perhaps, I don't know.
I don't define success like that - that's deception. It might be easy to make people think an article has been written by you when it's AI-generated instead (although I'd say that doesn't say anything good about your writing!) What I'm saying is that it's still easier to feel like a person on the other side of the screen in general, not just in the articles you write, also in these kinds of exchanges.
But even if I accepted your premises I'd say: Try. Try to make an article with ChatGPT feel like one written by a person. You will have a hard time because these systems, the ones that exist today, tend to linger around the center of the distributions of what's possible to say. That's why the writing feels bland, dull, and full of generalities. Humans, in contrast, write about what's unlikely, and implausible. We behave very differently.
That's the issue with your thought experiment, that you make the jump from "I wrote X article" to "what stops an AI from writing X article" but in practice, you find that there are actual things that stop it from doing so - not because no one will be fooled but because you can access that place I refer to and AI can't.
lovely piece. I've been so enjoying your work for all the reasons you've outlined. TAB feels like a warm cabin in a snowstorm!
Thank you Adam 🙏🏻 That's what I want it to feel! Especially as a newsletter about AI that I think stands out precisely because of that.
Hey Alberto, I’m wondering if you might pen a post on the future of writing instruction based on these insights. Sort of a follow up to your summer posts on education. Would love to see what you have in mind!
Interesting idea Nick! Will definitely consider it
Great Piece Alberto. I’m really curious to know (perhaps you could write on this) how to develop the human connection while writing.
Is it something that can be learned?
Of course. I learned it. I think others have written about that much better than I ever could. But I can tell you that it can be learned (what you won't find is a precise manual or recipe for it - it's one of those things you only truly learn by doing). I wouldn't miss those resources, though. They can give you hints that might take you a while to figure out on your own.
Very good. I'm glad I became a paying subscriber! I was in doubt. No more.
Thanks Paulo for your trust!
You make the word just a Human a compliment for the rest of us. Keep it up
The glaring truth is that AI tools have emerged and more advanced GPT tools will be created. They might make our deep thinking capability dull and uncreative but they will never replace our heart-to-heart conversations. They can only make our work efficient but they won't have the emotions that we have about each other.
On June this year, I delved into what will go wrong with us as AI continues to be developed. It is worrying when we let AI replace our precious asset - the mind. Check in the link below
https://open.substack.com/pub/thestartupfromafrica/p/with-the-proliferation-of-artificial?r=m5mq1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Do you think the same logic applies to all other mediums and content types?
I'd say it applies to every medium but not to every creative profession. I'm talking about my experience as a free Substack creator, if I was instead a freelancer then things would be different. I will write about this from that perspective.
All of us with an established voice will benefit, but starting fresh will be harder.
AI let's people like us distribute our voice and persona further, such as AI-generated voiceovers for our posts in our specific likeness: https://podcast.interconnects.ai/
But does AI add a significant difficulty factor over how difficult it was already to succeed as a writer? (Btw great newsletter Nathan, high value!)
Honestly, for me, I feel like AI is making me better (more interesting self-feedback, the ability to scale to multiple modalities like voice + images with a python script, and more self reflection about what the human element of writing is).
AI substantially adds to the noise at the bottom, so the barrier to entry is literally higher. Not sure it's an answer.
I think there is a difference between Gen AI prose and Gen AI themes and ideas. Gen AI is great at prose because it was trained strictly on words. Themes and ideas are a secondary emergence. Asking AI to write an article, I find, produces a largely superficial and straightforward article, with little to no original insights. An individual human has a unique vantage point from which to tell a story, which may be extremely relevant to the human experience. These are the ideas worth developing. Invoking the human spirits will otherwise need a more precise definition. I have no problem with using AI to help coauthor an article written around such themes, and then sprinkling in metaphors which make the piece more poignant.
EXCELLENT INFORMATIVE AND INCISIVE AT PLACES
Your points are very thoughtful and well taken, and your readers are more thoughtful and engaged than most. That said, please remember the first part of that truism: “You can fool SOME of the people, ALL of the time……” Unfortunately that fraction is now growing every day, and they will indeed be proving themselves to be fools once again. They are a dangerous lot, especially when their stupidity or ignorance is properly harnessed by convincing AI flooding the zone with passable shit. After all, we went to war in Iraq over a false story, created about false WMDs, told by an authority figure (Collin Powell) with mere depictions (drawings actually) of labs which ended up being entirely fabricated. That fooled “most of the people, some of the time”. Yet the agenda to invade was moved forward against more reasoned positions. The result: millions of lives lost over decades and trillions of dollars wasted. Corporations making colossal shitloads of money, if not outright siphoning money through corrupt practices. Meanwhile dumb fucks thought it was all about “freedom”. I made a pretty good living off those wars as a DHL contract pilot flying the mail into Iraq and Afghanistan. An old high school classmate once thanked me for “my service”. Stupid fuck.
AI is currently restricted from calling anyone a “dumb fuck”, even when they are! Imagine an AI that can eventually get away with that. They’re going to automatically sound much more human, especially if they can make a good case for it.
People were even fooled by Eliza when it debuted in the 1960s. Those dim bulbs will always lack the nuance of appreciating human written content and they’ll be completely taken in by processed crap. Not your readers per say, but large swaths of humanity who lack the sophistication or the desire to know any better. Some people absolutely LOVE processed foods, in spite of the fact that it degrades their health and ultimately quality of life, and can even shorten their lives. AI processed crap will have its own set of bad outcomes. A great many humans value lies above truth and authenticity. This will eventually be a colossal fuck’n problem.
"Any system which can provide the value we seek." That's where we disagree. No system other than a human can provide the value you seek. At least regarding writing.
You hit the nail on the head, Phil: It depends on what value one is seeking. But I defined the terms of the debate in my article! If you're *just* seeking info then you're not here, you're probably on Google or even ChatGPT. If you are seeking a connection with a human writer, an AI writing tool can't provide that. My argument is that humans want that kind of value that only humans can provide.
But I want to qualify that assertion by saying that I'm talking from my experience as a newsletter writer. If I was a freelancer, that would be a different story. But does AI really add a degree of difficulty to succeed as a freelancer that's significant in comparison with how hard it was in the first place? Perhaps, I don't know.
It can't without living like a human, being like a human. That's what I'm saying.
I don't define success like that - that's deception. It might be easy to make people think an article has been written by you when it's AI-generated instead (although I'd say that doesn't say anything good about your writing!) What I'm saying is that it's still easier to feel like a person on the other side of the screen in general, not just in the articles you write, also in these kinds of exchanges.
But even if I accepted your premises I'd say: Try. Try to make an article with ChatGPT feel like one written by a person. You will have a hard time because these systems, the ones that exist today, tend to linger around the center of the distributions of what's possible to say. That's why the writing feels bland, dull, and full of generalities. Humans, in contrast, write about what's unlikely, and implausible. We behave very differently.
That's the issue with your thought experiment, that you make the jump from "I wrote X article" to "what stops an AI from writing X article" but in practice, you find that there are actual things that stop it from doing so - not because no one will be fooled but because you can access that place I refer to and AI can't.