This is such a brain-kerfuddler…
I’ve become so attuned to spotting AI-written copy that it’s becoming hard work to know what anyone is really saying.
I think a key distinction in using AI to write is one that is centred on trust.
For me the greatest thing about writing is that what you put on a page or a document is your unique outworking of your thinking, with the nuances and oddities of phrases and how they are ordered unhidden.
I've heard several people say to me that they use AI to make their writing 'better'. But should 'bettter' be measured by its clinical accuracy?
I don’t think we’re all on the same page (sorry!) about what ‘better’ means.
I think that using AI to write or assist our writing removes our unique humanness in our communication and ultimately erodes trust. I want to know who you are and what you have to say, not have to guess if this is you but with a filter applied.
I’ve always known that gaining or maintaining trust in communications is vital, but until this AI-writing thing came along, I hadn’t quite realised how important it is.
And I’m concerned. This sounds a bit 'conspiracy-theory', but I think we all need to be more cautious than we realise about what using AI to ‘make things better’ or ‘give a bit of polish’ is doing to our precious brains.
AI thrives at the intersection of creativity and productivity. We're in a battle to retain the health of our cognitive abilities, but I think as humans we will be fine. It may just get worse before it gets better.