A.I. Cannot Replace Human Writers
Bloodless, Colorless, and Lifeless — No Style
“The sky is falling! A.I. is going to replace humans! Anything a human can do, a robot can do — faster and cheaper! Humans are obsolete! We’ll all be out of a job soon! Machines will turn against their human overlords and render us into mineral oil for the lubrication of their cold, shiny, metallic torsos!”
Bah, humbug.
Granted, the speed with which A.I. can generate text is downright impressive. But replace humans? I see it more as a research aid: ask ChatGPT (or whichever Internet robot you favor) to give you the skinny on some subject, and then use that as a basis for what you want to write — that might be helpful. But to let the robots just “have at it” and turn the quill over to them to generate articles would lead to bland, temporizing, vacillating prose. A.I.-generated output is the tofu of the written word. It lacks the intangible human touch. It has no blood, no style, no life — the breath of life has not, and cannot be, breathed into it. It takes a human soul, with a heart and its own opinions, emotions, and idiosyncracies, to do that.
As an example, a comparison of 1) What I wrote about the money made by gun manufacturers, the number of deaths caused by that product, and whether the loss of life is worth the gain of income, and 2) What ChatGPT wrote about it, followed by 3) My editing of the robot version, follows.
Here’s my take on it, 258 words first published here:
The homicidal maniac/serial killer/devil incarnate Joseph Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.”The bloody-handed gun profiteers apparently subscribe to Stalin’s thinking. In 2021, they amassed a booty of 449 million dollars. That year saw 49,000 Americans killed by guns.Dividing the profits by the losses (which should but doesn’t include the peripheral victims who grieve and mourn the loss of their child, grandchild, spouse, parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, etc.), the pittance of $9,163 was greedily stuffed into the coffers of the purveyors of pain for each person killed by their products.Would those promoting the expansion of gun sales (let alone refusing to even cooperate in limiting them, as reported in today’s New York Times, shown above) value their own children's lives at a mere $9,163? If not (and I assume not), why do they consider the lives of others’ children not worth that? And if they do value their children’s lives at only that paltry sum (or less?), at least they're being consistent. But, as Mark Twain said:“There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency—and a virtue; and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency—and a vice.”…and:“I am persuaded that the world has been tricked into adopting some false and most pernicious notions about consistency—and to such a degree that the average man has turned the rights and wrongs of things entirely around and is proud to be ‘consistent,’ unchanging, immovable, fossilized, where it should be his humiliation.”I asked ChatGPT to generate text based on the following instructions: Write a 250-word article comparing the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States to the number of gun deaths in the United States and whether the money earned is worth the loss of life.
This is what it came up with:
The gun manufacturing industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry. In 2020, the industry earned a revenue of $17.1 billion, which is a significant increase from the previous year's revenue of $11.7 billion. However, the number of gun deaths in the United States has also been on the rise, with 43,538 gun deaths reported in 2020, which is an increase from the previous year's total of 39,707.The question arises whether the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States is worth the loss of life. The answer is not a straightforward one as there are many factors to consider. One of the primary factors is the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and any attempts to restrict it are met with fierce opposition from gun rights advocates.However, it is also important to consider the human cost of gun violence. Every year, thousands of people die or are injured in gun-related incidents, and this has a significant impact on families and communities. It is also important to consider the economic cost of gun violence, which includes medical expenses, lost productivity, and the cost of law enforcement.Ultimately, the decision of whether the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States is worth the loss of life is a personal one. Some people believe that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and that any attempts to restrict it are an infringement on their rights. Others believe that the human cost of gun violence is too high, and that stricter gun control laws are necessary to protect the public.In conclusion, the debate surrounding gun control and the gun manufacturing industry is a complex one. While it is clear that the industry generates a significant amount of revenue, it is also clear that the human cost of gun violence is high. Ultimately, the decision of whether the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States is worth the loss of life is one that must be made by each individual.So the A.I.-generated text is 346 words instead of 250; I won’t whine too much about that (nor would I whinge if I was British). But the robot makes a better waffle iron than advocate for one point of view or the other. It is apathetic, indifferent; it waffles as to which is more important, money or human lives — rather than reach a conclusion and defend it, it “punts.”
A.I.-generated text may be useful for gathering certain statistics (as seen above) or in preparing a human for a debate, as its output will probably reveal some arguments that the opposition will propound on a given subject. I admit that. I’m not saying that A.I. is useless. What I am saying is that it’s dry, drab, dithering, insipid, and indecisive; it’s colorless, odorless, and lifeless. The text it generated above is flat, as if the writer (an automaton, after all) has become invisible and is trying to be all things to everyone.
Long live we humans and our invigorating (and sometimes infuriating) passion, heat, verve, and joie de vivre!
Here’s the robot-generated text after being enlivened by my edits:
Gun manufacturing in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry. In 2020, the industry raked in a whopping $17.1 billion, which is a significant increase from the previous year's revenue of $11.7 billion. On the other hand, the number of gun deaths in the United States has also been on the rise, with 43,538 of them reported in 2020 — a 10% increase from the previous year's total of 39,707. The gun manufacturers and their proponents and investors obviously find this trade-off acceptable.Is the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States worth the loss of so many lives? Even if you felt you could compare money to life (although apples and oranges are far more similar), the actual numbers being weighed against one another should not be dollars vs lives but the number of people profiteering from guns countered by those losing everything (not just money, but their very existence). It could well be that the ratio of those who benefit materially from guns to those who are killed by them is 1:1, or something close to it.
Those who cling tenaciously to the Second Amendment (which is interpreted by them as being meant to allow anybody who wants any kind of gun to have them) are adamantly against gun control.More important than pecuniary profits and a man-given "right" to own weapons is the preservation of human life and freedom for all citizens to live a peaceful life. Every year, tens of thousands of people die or are injured in gun-related incidents, and these tragedies are growing in number. It is not just the victims who are killed that suffer, but also their families and communities. Also worthy of consideration is the economic cost of gun violence: medical expenses, lost productivity, and the cost of additional law enforcement needed to respond to the mayhem caused by guns.The question as to whether the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States is worth the loss of life is clearly NO! Some people believe that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and that any attempts to restrict it are an infringement on their rights, but of greater moment is the human cost of gun violence. It is way too high, and much stricter gun control laws are necessary in order to protect the public.In conclusion, the debate surrounding gun control and the gun manufacturing industry is simple: While the manufacture and sale of guns generates a significant amount of revenue, such profits are of little value whatsoever in comparison with the human cost of gun violence. Ultimately, the decision of whether the money earned by gun manufacturers in the United States is worth the loss of life is blatantly obvious: No, it's not!To sum up: Can A.I. be useful? Yes, in a limited way. Can it replace humans? Hell no. Or, to expand on that a bit, only in the way that robots have replaced humans when you call a company with a question or complaint. They have replaced humans, but not well.
What do you think: Can A.I. replace human writers? I think not; therefore I am a human.