A WORD OF WARNING: Bots writing for bots, human error, and the irony of ‘man-made’... Thoughts of an uneasy copywriter on ChatGPT

Precursor: no bot was involved in the creation of this piece.
(100% human endeavour owes to its conviction… or lack thereof).

Language. 

It's a reflection of our thoughts, emotions, beliefs and culture. From symbols and engravings, to verbal and written lore, it’s anchored our place in the world as a species for hundreds of thousands of years.

Language is currently at the core of my career. And it’s also being questioned by that rampant, prominent vice of 2023: ChatGPT.

But unlike any other global fad, this one won't die by the years' end. It will get smarter, it will become widely accepted beyond conscious thought, and it will consume (or 'revolutionise', albeit optimistic) jobs - including my own. 

So I'm a tad bothered.

For the sake of my business, of course. But let’s be real, there's a much bigger picture.

What on earth, or beyond, will robots writing for robots mean for the future of universal literature? (Disclaimer: open AI optimising content for algorithms).

It’s here that I’d like to footnote George Orwell’s divisive words; “If thought can corrupt language, then language can corrupt thought.” That’s to say, there’s an inextricable link between literacy and logic - also, poor language and poor thoughts.

If ChatGPT increasingly improves to become a language replacement tool, then it will inevitably pose a threat to language - and logic - diversity. We’ve already seen this through the monopoly of media outlets governing news… and perhaps we’re staring down the barrel of a new monopoly. 

Sure, AI currently can’t perceive the world like humans do… until we teach it to. Which begs the question; can creativity be taught, quantified, or replicated?

By all means, that depends on how you define it. Perhaps creativity is in a person’s cumulative experience, their unique combination of nature and nurture, turned into something shareable… or perhaps it can be simply reduced to human error and imperfections.

Some would argue that AI can only create from what it already knows, and cannot generate new ideas. But isn’t that precisely what we as humans do; create from what we know, i.e our own experiences? 

To take a dreary angle, I tend to accept that creativity is finite and quantifiable, therefore able to be taught and replicated. I think we’re very quick to pat ourselves on the back for being idealists, before doing the groundwork to find out exactly how original, on a global scale, those ideals really are (if at all possible to prove). Yes, I’m thinking of Pareto’s age-old philosophy; there’s no such thing as a new idea, only new combinations of old elements.

Imagine a world where our every experience could sync with AI. We’d be facing a system that’s learned an entire spectrum of imagination, and which could potentially ‘do creativity’ better than humans could… because, well, neverending inspo. Dreary, like I said.

The stark irony of the future may well be that ‘man-made’ no longer constitutes something artificially manufactured, but rather the new ‘naturally caused’ event, with human intervention charged at a premium. Perhaps in an unblemished, AI-driven world, that human intervention will simply be reduced to deliberate, or accidental, imperfections - the brush stroke on a painting that stands out; the phrase that’s not search-engine optimised; or the incorrect use of shutter speed in a photo. 

At least until then, what’s undeniable is the creative gains of humans and AI, together.