I really enjoyed this. My main interest is investing and your articulation of writing as a thinking process inspires me to spend more time writing to think through my investments. I already feel on watch for any lazy tropes I am reaching for rather than the one that perfectly encapsulates what I’m trying to communicate.
You seem to have started from a place of strong emotion with a clear distaste for how AI might erode clarity of thought and authenticity in writing then built an intellectual case to justify that feeling. It’s a compelling argument, and I genuinely enjoyed reading it. I admit a large part of that enjoyment came from knowing it was the product of a human mind applying intelligence, perspective, passion, and artistic ability.
And yet, I’m unsettled.
Paraphrasing Peterson’s idea, good writing involves layers: words, phrases, sentences, sequence to create a coherent flow. To suggest that AI’s contribution to any of these layers is unhelpful (“evil”) feels - at best – incomplete. Arguably it’s shortsighted, especially when the critique selectively focuses on what AI might diminish while ignoring what it might enhance.
So, what’s the goal? Is it better writing — or exclusive authorship? If it’s the former, it seems premature to dismiss a tool that - in the same intelligent, thoughtful, artistic hands for which you advocate AI-free writing - might sharpen expression rather than blunt it. If it’s the latter, then perhaps authorship itself has always been shared? Words, phrases, grammar, metaphor are all inherited tools.
Maybe it’s time to accept that AI is simply the next one in that progression?
However, today’s AI tools are not tailored for this function. Also, outsourcing effort (with AI or otherwise) impairs your cultivation of taste, and curation without taste is just noise. AI in thoughtful hands can be good, but each use is a step not taken towards becoming great.
Style and technical quality aside, the biggest problem is that writing is a method for thinking; not just “getting thoughts down” but also “thinking them up”; and if you outsource your writing then you won’t develop the ideas you would have otherwise had.
Follow along with the discussion about 'And Yet, Defend your Thoughts from AI Writing': https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ksCwps6YjsMFBkEFQ/and-yet-defend-your-thoughts-from-ai-writing
I really enjoyed this. My main interest is investing and your articulation of writing as a thinking process inspires me to spend more time writing to think through my investments. I already feel on watch for any lazy tropes I am reaching for rather than the one that perfectly encapsulates what I’m trying to communicate.
You seem to have started from a place of strong emotion with a clear distaste for how AI might erode clarity of thought and authenticity in writing then built an intellectual case to justify that feeling. It’s a compelling argument, and I genuinely enjoyed reading it. I admit a large part of that enjoyment came from knowing it was the product of a human mind applying intelligence, perspective, passion, and artistic ability.
And yet, I’m unsettled.
Paraphrasing Peterson’s idea, good writing involves layers: words, phrases, sentences, sequence to create a coherent flow. To suggest that AI’s contribution to any of these layers is unhelpful (“evil”) feels - at best – incomplete. Arguably it’s shortsighted, especially when the critique selectively focuses on what AI might diminish while ignoring what it might enhance.
So, what’s the goal? Is it better writing — or exclusive authorship? If it’s the former, it seems premature to dismiss a tool that - in the same intelligent, thoughtful, artistic hands for which you advocate AI-free writing - might sharpen expression rather than blunt it. If it’s the latter, then perhaps authorship itself has always been shared? Words, phrases, grammar, metaphor are all inherited tools.
Maybe it’s time to accept that AI is simply the next one in that progression?
AI can produce exceptional writing — I argue this happens when you apply intense curatorial selection pressure: https://open.substack.com/pub/agenticconjectures/p/a-thoughtful-defense-of-ai-writing
However, today’s AI tools are not tailored for this function. Also, outsourcing effort (with AI or otherwise) impairs your cultivation of taste, and curation without taste is just noise. AI in thoughtful hands can be good, but each use is a step not taken towards becoming great.
Style and technical quality aside, the biggest problem is that writing is a method for thinking; not just “getting thoughts down” but also “thinking them up”; and if you outsource your writing then you won’t develop the ideas you would have otherwise had.
This was fantastic. Everything should always come from first principles thinking, helps you build that creative muscle which AI is turbo atrophying