The assignment was to have AI write a series of articles about AI and how it can be used to make our lives easier. It was not assigned to a writer, but to AI. As a journalist and writer, I strongly objected, as did a colleague. So, a staff writer at The Suburban took on the challenge.
“Can you write it better than AI?” she was asked.
“You’re damned right I can.”
“AI won’t replace people,” she wrote, “but people who don’t embrace AI will be replaced by more efficient people who do.”
That sounded like a threat from the future.
As a writer, using AI to circumvent the creative process, the human creative process, offends me. But ChatGPT says that I am missing the point.
Yes, ChatGPT and I had a conversation about it.
I asked it if it had a name, like Siri or Alexa, or if people give it names. It said that, yes, sometimes people give it names to create the illusion of personal interaction. I thought of calling it HAL. Or Jarvis. But that would have been a little too on the nose.
I will perhaps not-so-begrudgingly admit that AI can be useful in the same way that a spellchecker or GPS is useful. I know how to spell and use grammar, but a second set of eyes, albeit electronic, is useful. I know how to get around the city, but a GPS can tell me where the traffic and construction sites are. But it’s still me doing the writing and the driving.
I do use AI. But what I use it for is what’s important. AI is absolutely used in journalism. “The distinction,” ChatGPT said, “is between using AI as a journalistic tool and using AI as the journalist.” I have often said that, either way, using AI in this way is a slippery slope to being replaced by machines.
That won’t happen, ChatGPT assured me, though I think a little skepticism can be forgiven.
“You are still the reporter,” ChatGPT said. “You decide what’s interesting. You decide whom to call. You conduct the interview. You decide what’s significant,” and perhaps most importantly as a writer at The Suburban, “you understand your community.”
As a freelance podcaster, I recently produced an episode that didn’t sound as good as I had hoped it would. I uploaded the episode to ChatGPT and asked it to equalize the voices and music beds. The final product is still mine – my personality, my interview questions, me directing the conversation and helping the guest to feel at ease.
But ChatGPT also told me that my initial objection to this assignment, my discomfort, was understandable. So, it suggested I tell the boss “I’ll cover AI, but I think we should cover it as journalists rather than as promoters.” A community newspaper, it said, “could do something much more valuable than cheerleading for AI.”
It suggested a series called This week in AI.
So, over the next few weeks, I will test AI tools and report back. But with a caveat.
I don’t want it to plan weekly meals, to help me organize household tasks, to make shopping lists, or plan my workouts. Even ChatGPT agrees that I shouldn’t outsource my executive judgement or give up my personal agency. But I’m willing to try it for things like budgeting, which I suck at, home or auto repairs, writing my will, and yes, editing.