While there is no denying the general utility of Generative AI, it is going to be an unmitigated disaster for the field of opinion writing. Those who have been around long enough would recall that the advent of electronic typewriters and word processors ended up making bad writers even worse. But at the same time, and to their immense credit, they also helped good writers become better. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that GenAI will do any good to creative or opinion writers.
The general public first became aware of the power of GenAI some years ago when people started sharing things such as articles on today’s economy or polity in (say) Earnest Hemingway’s style (how he would have written). No doubt such things were wonderful advertisements for artificial intelligence, and readers invariably found themselves awestruck by the impressive technology that made such things possible. And it was great fun too. But it was a matter of time before the novelty of such gimmicks was bound to wear off. And sure enough, soon such things lost their charm.
It is not that GenAI has no role to play when it comes to producing effective documents. In fact, with competent and informed prompting, it is ideally suited for technical and legal reports– documents that deal exclusively, or most significantly, with facts, and that follow a set template or format. In contrast, opinion pieces, by definition, are supposed to present an author’s opinions. When the ‘author’ of the piece happens to be GenAI however, it becomes a contradiction in terms because algorithms do not– cannot– have opinions. They merely follow sequences of instructions.
The word ‘essay’ comes from the French word ‘essai’, which means ‘an attempt’ or ‘a trial’. GenAI generated output cannot count as one because if it can at all be called an ‘attempt’, it is on the part of the neural-network architecture. It can hardly be attributed to the individual operating the application. It is for very good reasons that GenAI generated essays are not acceptable in good learning institutions. It is not difficult for the trained eye to recognize such essays for what they are. Besides, AI itself can readily tell original compositions apart from GenAI ‘efforts’.
Trained writers who went through their paces in the pre-GenAI days may still escape the worst effects of using the technology owing to their prior training. But that is a generation on its way out. It will soon be replaced by youngsters relying on GenAI without having put in the hard yards to learn how to think and write. In an era in which critical thinking skill is already at a premium, the irresistible temptation and the ready availability of GenAI cannot possibly be good news.
There is much more to creative writing than merely ending up with a finished article. It involves thinking critically, deciding what to write and, equally importantly, how. Also, often the writer does not know (or is not sure of) his own thoughts on an issue when he sits down to write. It is through the process of writing that he finds out his own stance on the matter. It can be very tempting to turn to GenAI for the ‘answer’, which it will provide in a matter of seconds. But that would be GenAI’s opinion, not the writer’s.
Human beings have this unfortunate propensity of narrow-mindedly focusing on the ends. This is done at the cost of losing sight of the importance of means. The final product is no doubt important in creative and opinion writing, as it is in anything else. However, probably more important is the process: the meticulous building up of the argument, the painstaking weeding out of contradictions and inconsistencies, and the decisions regarding how best to present the content. It is by virtue of these that the writer hones his critical thinking craft and expression skills. Writers are ill-advised to bypass this process. GenAI is apt to produce a composition free of typos and grammatical errors. Often it gets its facts right too. But that is about all. It can be no replacement for the clarity, the insight, and the discernment gained by successfully resolving clashing thoughts.
Readers have the liberty of taking an essay or a newspaper column as an end– as a finished article to be read. No writer worth his salt can afford to take that view. For the author, each article represents a problem to be solved. It is an arduous task combining the need for critical thinking as well as having to decide, on each step of the way, how best to put his thoughts across. It is a challenging journey, which he is supposed to come out of as a better writer on account of having successfully negotiated it.
Trained writers who went through their paces in the pre-GenAI days may still escape the worst effects of using the technology owing to their prior training. But that is a generation on its way out. It will soon be replaced by youngsters relying on GenAI without having put in the hard yards to learn how to think and write. In an era in which critical thinking skill is already at a premium, the irresistible temptation and the ready availability of GenAI cannot possibly be good news.
