I don't understand why someone who purportedly likes to write or create would outsource the best part of that process to a computer. I get that it's hard sometimes but still...
But they don't like to write. To them, it's just another joyless task they simply want to get off their plate (but reap the rewards from without doing). Modernity.
We actually should automate all the non-creative work and give that to robots/machines. This frees humans up for the creative stuff that's honestly worse in the hands of AI. Creativity *is* an endgame!
I’m exploring an idea around this. I think it is something bone deep and fundamental; namely, because we are wired to conserve energy, we are not well suited to deal with abundance. This causes us to shrink and follow the path of least resistance in the face of overwhelm. I keep coming back to this quote: “The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.”
Brilliant, as always, Adam. There are too many powerful lines in here to extract just one, but I’ll try: “You can slow down and provide real meaning instead, it’s probably the only real moat any of us have. Stop doing more to do more and remember the only thing no one can copy is you, when you decide to authentically show up. The machines can’t capture your impossibly unique depth and complexity, they can only provide a poor facsimile.”
I wrote something similar on slop: “ The problem with slop isn’t the slop. It isn’t even the fact that AI was used. After all, tools don’t commit crimes; people do.
The problem with slop (especially in writing) is that the writer doesn’t care enough about the reader to make the reader’s life easier.
That’s the whole job.
You see, writing is an act of respect. You sweat the small stuff so your reader doesn’t drown in it. You spend the hours and the blood and the rewrites and the self-loathing and the tears so your reader can glide—effortlessly—over a surface that took you months to sand smooth. A good sentence is a sheet of ice slowly, secretly melted down from years of someone else’s hard labor. The reader skates; the writer bleeds.
I always preferred writing to speaking because it allows me to select my words carefully. I am generally pro-technology, and I use AI writing tools all the time. I've logged 30 million words in Grammarly over the 10 years I have used it, and I think it's a great tool. I guess my take on all of this is that the people who have a unique style and distinctive approach will stand out in this massive ocean of mediocrity that these tools create. Great writers were always rare, and I think that will remain the case, even if AI can supposedly do it for you.
The appraisal of AI and AI's impact on human capacity seemed true.
The implication that individuals would have to resist AI's encroachment on human capacity seemed clear enough. But there are all those others out there. How to get them to agree with the appraisal of AI then do something to push the other way?
Saying surrender to AI leaves us a horrible state of affairs is one thing. Doing something about it is another. Wish I had a solution.
"And note, I do think these tools might provide some use. But only for people who actually learn to do something well without them first, or for people with high quality standards.'
Absolutely 💯. "Computers are complements to humans, not substitutes."
I don't understand why someone who purportedly likes to write or create would outsource the best part of that process to a computer. I get that it's hard sometimes but still...
But they don't like to write. To them, it's just another joyless task they simply want to get off their plate (but reap the rewards from without doing). Modernity.
I guess this is how we achieve the dream of a "post-work" society lol
We actually should automate all the non-creative work and give that to robots/machines. This frees humans up for the creative stuff that's honestly worse in the hands of AI. Creativity *is* an endgame!
As great as a post-work society sounds in theory, I think it would be catastrophic for most people.
Yeah I posted the other day we don't really have a plan for this future, but it's coming regardless https://x.com/AdamSinger/status/1982827130338914711
Definitely agree with you there
I’m exploring an idea around this. I think it is something bone deep and fundamental; namely, because we are wired to conserve energy, we are not well suited to deal with abundance. This causes us to shrink and follow the path of least resistance in the face of overwhelm. I keep coming back to this quote: “The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.”
Brilliant, as always, Adam. There are too many powerful lines in here to extract just one, but I’ll try: “You can slow down and provide real meaning instead, it’s probably the only real moat any of us have. Stop doing more to do more and remember the only thing no one can copy is you, when you decide to authentically show up. The machines can’t capture your impossibly unique depth and complexity, they can only provide a poor facsimile.”
I wrote something similar on slop: “ The problem with slop isn’t the slop. It isn’t even the fact that AI was used. After all, tools don’t commit crimes; people do.
The problem with slop (especially in writing) is that the writer doesn’t care enough about the reader to make the reader’s life easier.
That’s the whole job.
You see, writing is an act of respect. You sweat the small stuff so your reader doesn’t drown in it. You spend the hours and the blood and the rewrites and the self-loathing and the tears so your reader can glide—effortlessly—over a surface that took you months to sand smooth. A good sentence is a sheet of ice slowly, secretly melted down from years of someone else’s hard labor. The reader skates; the writer bleeds.
And slop is what happens when nobody bleeds.”
More here: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/slop-is-contempt
I always preferred writing to speaking because it allows me to select my words carefully. I am generally pro-technology, and I use AI writing tools all the time. I've logged 30 million words in Grammarly over the 10 years I have used it, and I think it's a great tool. I guess my take on all of this is that the people who have a unique style and distinctive approach will stand out in this massive ocean of mediocrity that these tools create. Great writers were always rare, and I think that will remain the case, even if AI can supposedly do it for you.
This is scary. I'll go further and say it demonic.
Yes it's a deal with the devil to fully cede your creative agency to automation
If you take away the joy of creation from a creator and if that person is not bugged at all, that person was never a creator at all. I think.
The appraisal of AI and AI's impact on human capacity seemed true.
The implication that individuals would have to resist AI's encroachment on human capacity seemed clear enough. But there are all those others out there. How to get them to agree with the appraisal of AI then do something to push the other way?
Saying surrender to AI leaves us a horrible state of affairs is one thing. Doing something about it is another. Wish I had a solution.
"Our society is demoralized and degenerate."
Mr. Calhoun's mice agree and propose the term "behavioral sink."
Great piece, Adam! AI should be a tool in a writer’s toolbox, not a generative replacement for the writer.
"And note, I do think these tools might provide some use. But only for people who actually learn to do something well without them first, or for people with high quality standards.'
Absolutely 💯. "Computers are complements to humans, not substitutes."
Love this!