Photo by Om siva Prakash on Unsplash

For this week’s pathfinding session, the article assigned, Will ChatGPT Replace Human Writers? by Peter Biles, explores whether artificial intelligence (AI) can replace human writers, given the development of technologies like OpenAI’s DALL-E and ChatGPT. Sean Thomas of the Spectator World argues that writers are “screwed” and recommends they quit the craft entirely.

However, Christopher Reid, an academic translator, takes a more balanced approach, suggesting that creative workers will “post-create” by using machines to generate initial ideas that they then refine. However, Reid is concerned about copyright issues and believes AI technicians need to develop a way for human creators to receive dividends when AI mimics their work. The article then goes on to question the reductionist view that writing is merely “algorithmic,” as language serves a two-fold purpose: to convey reality and establish a relational connection with others. Bile suggests that the personal and conversational element of language makes it uniquely human and that AI may never be able to replace human creativity. While AI can generate facts and pretty sentences, it cannot engage in dialogue and lacks a mutual commitment to reality. 

Some critics, such as Sean Thomas, argue that AI will soon be able to outperform human writers in all areas. He suggests that writers should quit the craft entirely, as computers will do it better. However, the article challenges this view, arguing that writing is not simply an automated algorithmic process. The purpose of language is to convey reality and establish a relational connection with other people. AI may be able to generate text, but it cannot engage in real communication because it is not interested in reality and lacks a mutual commitment to truth. AI-generated writing cannot replace human writing, because it does not have the interpersonal and personal element that makes it uniquely human.

The article notes that AI will reduce the cognitive load of creating, allowing creative workers to post-create instead of create. A machine can generate an initial idea, and the artist or writer can then tinker with it to produce a final product. However, the article also raises concerns about copyright issues, particularly for artists, and calls for AI technicians to develop a way for human creators to receive dividends when AI mimics their work.

While AI has an impact on creative work, it will not replace human writers and artists. Instead, the impact is somewhere in the middle, where AI can aid and complement human creativity but never be able to replicate the personal and interpersonal nature of human communication.