A great deal has happened to me over the past year, both professionally and philosophically. Last year, I had objected to AI on a rather deep level, but it has come a long way since then. More models have been released, and the process has become more intuitive; prompts seem to flow more easily than ever. 

AI embeds are everywhere. Indeed, I am typing this draft in Word and Copilot is an option in the menu; it’s that accessible. Type on any document on the Internet, and there is an abundance of AI helpers ready to fix your dangling participles and insert Oxford commas. I use Grammarly on the regular to alert me to grammar mistakes because I’m an enthusiastic comma inserter, but the suggestions it gives me to “improve” my writing are mostly annoying, and I dismiss a lot of them because the improved writing doesn’t sound like me.

In my new job, I’m required to use AI daily to flesh out keywords and main points. It’s helpful, of course, but I still believe AI-generated content won’t take the place of journalism, literary fiction, non-fiction or any type of long-form content where thought, nuance and crafting the best words and phrases is necessary. Not successfully, anyway. AI scours the internet for its answers. So, we’re not getting anything new. It’s high-tech plagiarism to be honest.

I’m not sure what the long game is for AI. To replace human thought today with human thought from yesteryear? Or, is it a tool to brainstorm ideas, outlines and organize disparate ramblings from disorganized brains? I believe the best course is the latter; using AI as a tool. As an optimist, I think we can use AI to extend our thought processes and remain open to new ideas. We just have to approach it with a critical eye; not all “improvements” are needed or necessary.