To add to the editor point (and to perhaps flatter both our egos), editing is its own skill. It can be done badly! The problem with everyone embracing AI to produce a first draft is that it demands everyone becomes a good editor, which some will, and many won't.
Delighted to read article and thank you for defending the fortress of HUMANNESS!
As a Critic writer who uses AI to check my pros for spelling and grammar ONLY but often find I have to rebuke the bot for going beyond this and swapping or blunding words!
Your article inspired me to finish mine on AI fluff!
This is excellent. I've had clients hand in AI-generated slop, and it takes me 10,000x longer to edit because I have to *undo* what AI did (for complicated reasons some "volunteers" cannot be held accountable for their AI slop, but alas). Plus, the language is just awful.
I use AI as a helper/organizer. I use it to organize notes, create outlines, copy edit for AP style, etc. But I always, always, "feed" it my original work.
And yes, editing and writing are two distinct skills, and it is nice to see professionals acknowledge that. One time, when I had a 9-5 in tech, I explained to a colleague, "Writing and editing dissertations are two different skills. Often times, PhD students pay a professional editor." Erin McD replied snidely, "Why can't they edit their own work?" 🫠
Keep calling out AI articles, Ben. It may be another example of Tolkien’s long defeat, but if we’re indeed set for obsolete I’d rather human writers went down fighting.
One of the ironies of AI and writing is that clear writing-as-thinking is rewarded in prompting coding agents, on top of the more traditional benefits of writing. If your goal isn’t just using LLMs to cut corners, which sadly is pretty common.
I'm enjoying the discipline of committed non-AI writing in this space. It's disappointing to open a promising piece only to realise within seconds is AI generated.
Thanks for the article. I use AI for research, honing my ideas, and to help structure articles. It’s my ideas, but the AI helps me keep focussed on hitting the right points in the article.
Sometimes the AI does suggest a turn of phrase which is objectively beautiful. I might bring this into an article, or it might be a spark for a new article.
AI is a very useful writing tool, I call it an incredible phrase thesaurus. But, that’s it. I’d never use it to write for me. It just isn’t good enough.
After working with AI, that’s not how it works. It doesn’t steal in the sense of plagiarism. It uses massive data sets of examples of writing to inform a probability model.
In your frame, we would have to say that as I write this on my phone I get three suggestions as to what the next word should be. If I used one of those suggestions then it would be plagiarism. Obviously, that doesn’t feel correct.
Because, this is how AI LLMs actually work. It’s a neat linguistic trick. In fact, all AIs work the same. Even the image ones.
So, they don’t steal other people work, they use the probability of word and phrase choice from other people’s work. Which isn’t stealing. It’s data analysis.
This is the reason why AIs hallucinate.
It’s hard to get our heads round it because of all the fear mongering around AI.
I'd actually argue all art is to some extent based on copying, even if that copying entails reading a lot of books and taking something from each of them. But if the only question AI is asking is statistical that feels closer to plagiarism than when humans do it.
To add to the editor point (and to perhaps flatter both our egos), editing is its own skill. It can be done badly! The problem with everyone embracing AI to produce a first draft is that it demands everyone becomes a good editor, which some will, and many won't.
True!
Hi Ben,
Delighted to read article and thank you for defending the fortress of HUMANNESS!
As a Critic writer who uses AI to check my pros for spelling and grammar ONLY but often find I have to rebuke the bot for going beyond this and swapping or blunding words!
Your article inspired me to finish mine on AI fluff!
Remind me of what kind of articles and submissions The Critic is looking for?
800-1200 word articles making a fresh and incisive argument about some aspect of politics (generally but not exclusively British politics) or culture.
This is excellent. I've had clients hand in AI-generated slop, and it takes me 10,000x longer to edit because I have to *undo* what AI did (for complicated reasons some "volunteers" cannot be held accountable for their AI slop, but alas). Plus, the language is just awful.
I use AI as a helper/organizer. I use it to organize notes, create outlines, copy edit for AP style, etc. But I always, always, "feed" it my original work.
And yes, editing and writing are two distinct skills, and it is nice to see professionals acknowledge that. One time, when I had a 9-5 in tech, I explained to a colleague, "Writing and editing dissertations are two different skills. Often times, PhD students pay a professional editor." Erin McD replied snidely, "Why can't they edit their own work?" 🫠
Keep calling out AI articles, Ben. It may be another example of Tolkien’s long defeat, but if we’re indeed set for obsolete I’d rather human writers went down fighting.
One of the ironies of AI and writing is that clear writing-as-thinking is rewarded in prompting coding agents, on top of the more traditional benefits of writing. If your goal isn’t just using LLMs to cut corners, which sadly is pretty common.
Of course I’d notice a typo after you liked the comment
I’m not using it, not even once. It’s gone into a box with Tiktok and other newfangled nonsense that can, quite frankly, get fucked.
I'm enjoying the discipline of committed non-AI writing in this space. It's disappointing to open a promising piece only to realise within seconds is AI generated.
Thanks for the article. I use AI for research, honing my ideas, and to help structure articles. It’s my ideas, but the AI helps me keep focussed on hitting the right points in the article.
Sometimes the AI does suggest a turn of phrase which is objectively beautiful. I might bring this into an article, or it might be a spark for a new article.
AI is a very useful writing tool, I call it an incredible phrase thesaurus. But, that’s it. I’d never use it to write for me. It just isn’t good enough.
As I understand it, that “objectively beautiful” turn of phrase is originally someone else’s. AI has just regurgitated it in a different context.
After working with AI, that’s not how it works. It doesn’t steal in the sense of plagiarism. It uses massive data sets of examples of writing to inform a probability model.
In your frame, we would have to say that as I write this on my phone I get three suggestions as to what the next word should be. If I used one of those suggestions then it would be plagiarism. Obviously, that doesn’t feel correct.
Because, this is how AI LLMs actually work. It’s a neat linguistic trick. In fact, all AIs work the same. Even the image ones.
So, they don’t steal other people work, they use the probability of word and phrase choice from other people’s work. Which isn’t stealing. It’s data analysis.
This is the reason why AIs hallucinate.
It’s hard to get our heads round it because of all the fear mongering around AI.
I'd actually argue all art is to some extent based on copying, even if that copying entails reading a lot of books and taking something from each of them. But if the only question AI is asking is statistical that feels closer to plagiarism than when humans do it.
I highly agree with this and never use AI in my writing. I would rather be mediocre on my own terms than use a machine!
Great article, Ben.
Thank you.
Thank you!