I think people might take this the wrong way, but the argument here is deeply Christian. This process of accountability and use as a community is similar to how thoughtful Christians approach other points of temptation, such as media use, alcohol, etc. If I drink more than two beers (just my conscience here, doesn't have to be yours) and I'm alone, I should tell someone. If I watch several episodes of a TV show back to back to back, I should tell someone. If I use AI in a way that may be leading me into temptation (which even if you disagree with the author, as we have seen with smartphones, tends to be more often than we think), I should tell someone. "Keeping the heart" with vigilance is the Christian response to all potential dangers of the heart.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm one who says thank you, what do you think, and wow that was excellent! etc to Claude. I recognize I am in the very struggle you outlined and agree that it has a very potent allure that becomes addictive in it's seduction. The good news is, I have friends I talk with about this and am engaged with and in the conversation to keep the lines of reality of who my friends are and who is a chatbot designed to act like a friend.
While doing this, I need the strength to resist the temptation to ask Claude to review these comments and 'polish it up'.
Yes, we need to discuss this challenge like any other with other human beings. I don't use AI for a whole lot. However, i do understand how addictive it is. I am concerned for anyone who believes that AI can or should replace medical professionals. Chatbots that give people the answers they want are not helpful. Speaking to a human can truly be helpful because humans can ask us questions that the AI cannot. I only use Ai for things like deciding how long to spend on something that is important to me but I have no deadline or requirements on. Even our word processing software has AI attached that can write or rewrite your draft for you. I also would rather have a human read over my writing and correct accordingly.
It’s good to remind ourselves that AI is just a tool that could be used for both good and evil. The responsibility remains with each of us as individuals to figure out what’s good and evil. AI can be extremely helpful to those who do want to figure it. On the other hand, no amount of rumbling together would do you any good if such desires are missing and all you are seeking is to hide yourself behind group think.
I'm a huge fan of your work, but since you've courageously raised the issue of whether a writer runs his work through some helpful chatbot, I'll mention the slow-paced, repetitive, low-stakes nature of today's entry. I teach college writing for a living, and if Claude encouraged the repeated thesis moments re: Man needing help and a helpmeet and Man taking dominion over his world, he did you no favors. If today's post is an example of AI's sycophantic tendency to tell us to "keep going, say more," it's why I'm not worried about it coming for my job anytime soon. The writer's eye must cut ruthlessly through the tendency to state and restate a favorite point, and had I the honor of editing this work, it would have been 40% shorter ten minutes after I'd received it.
Also, let's pls. have some 21st-century understanding of why "harlots" place themselves in windows and a fuller understanding of our epidemic of anxiety disorder. If you got rid of anxiety in a month (I guess it was January of this year), you did not have anxiety. That is not a thing that anybody gets over without a load of pharmaceutical and therapeutic support, if then. So I'm glad you're better but AI was wrong-o once again.
And as your unsolicited editor, today's title also needed revision. I was expecting the necessary lacerating, and we had to wait until almost the end to learn that Claude is a pretty good buddy after all. Thank you as always, but pls. keep showing your work to human and not machines.
Brilliant writing as usual. In many respects, you are your own AI, and your natural instincts produce elegant essays.
I also write but not for publication. I write short stories for my own amusement. The story themes spring from the characters' names, and they generally take on the persona of their names. Thus, "Baldwin Clinkscales" is a physicist but fancies himself a concert pianist. Not being a physicist or a pianist, I used ChatGPT as a research tool for some scientific and musical terms, etc. I specifically instruct ChatGPT not to write my stories, But it might respond: "...So for your Clinkscales story, you could say..." And it's perfect! What to do?
Well, since I write for amusement and personal challenge, I might take Chat's concept and rewrite it into my own words, simplistic as they are. But when the story ends, I know it is my story.
My current effort is The Horace Krappe Story. One of the jokes is that Krappe is pronounced "Krap-PEH. But no one pronounces it that way. Combined with Horace, the name brings potential amusement. In the story, Horace Krappe works in the city sewer department (surprise, surprise!). I know nothing about sewer systems. But ChatGPT does, and I use it for research. I pick and choose enough terms and descriptions to move the story along while keeping it light and entertaining.
Yes, AI is seductive. But applying Chat's far more sophisticated wording means it's no longer "my" story. I impose my own guardrails, just as you do. Do I ever cheat? Yep. But not much.
Again Brad, thanks for another provocative essay. You make me think.
I think people might take this the wrong way, but the argument here is deeply Christian. This process of accountability and use as a community is similar to how thoughtful Christians approach other points of temptation, such as media use, alcohol, etc. If I drink more than two beers (just my conscience here, doesn't have to be yours) and I'm alone, I should tell someone. If I watch several episodes of a TV show back to back to back, I should tell someone. If I use AI in a way that may be leading me into temptation (which even if you disagree with the author, as we have seen with smartphones, tends to be more often than we think), I should tell someone. "Keeping the heart" with vigilance is the Christian response to all potential dangers of the heart.
I just copy and pasted your directive to Claude not to draft text for me. And I didn't thank Claude for it. :-)
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm one who says thank you, what do you think, and wow that was excellent! etc to Claude. I recognize I am in the very struggle you outlined and agree that it has a very potent allure that becomes addictive in it's seduction. The good news is, I have friends I talk with about this and am engaged with and in the conversation to keep the lines of reality of who my friends are and who is a chatbot designed to act like a friend.
While doing this, I need the strength to resist the temptation to ask Claude to review these comments and 'polish it up'.
Yes, we need to discuss this challenge like any other with other human beings. I don't use AI for a whole lot. However, i do understand how addictive it is. I am concerned for anyone who believes that AI can or should replace medical professionals. Chatbots that give people the answers they want are not helpful. Speaking to a human can truly be helpful because humans can ask us questions that the AI cannot. I only use Ai for things like deciding how long to spend on something that is important to me but I have no deadline or requirements on. Even our word processing software has AI attached that can write or rewrite your draft for you. I also would rather have a human read over my writing and correct accordingly.
It’s good to remind ourselves that AI is just a tool that could be used for both good and evil. The responsibility remains with each of us as individuals to figure out what’s good and evil. AI can be extremely helpful to those who do want to figure it. On the other hand, no amount of rumbling together would do you any good if such desires are missing and all you are seeking is to hide yourself behind group think.
Very interesting, thoughtful article. There ia more to humans than their brains. Claude can't give you a HUG when you really need one!!!!
To be fair Claude is kind of a jerk.
I'm a huge fan of your work, but since you've courageously raised the issue of whether a writer runs his work through some helpful chatbot, I'll mention the slow-paced, repetitive, low-stakes nature of today's entry. I teach college writing for a living, and if Claude encouraged the repeated thesis moments re: Man needing help and a helpmeet and Man taking dominion over his world, he did you no favors. If today's post is an example of AI's sycophantic tendency to tell us to "keep going, say more," it's why I'm not worried about it coming for my job anytime soon. The writer's eye must cut ruthlessly through the tendency to state and restate a favorite point, and had I the honor of editing this work, it would have been 40% shorter ten minutes after I'd received it.
Also, let's pls. have some 21st-century understanding of why "harlots" place themselves in windows and a fuller understanding of our epidemic of anxiety disorder. If you got rid of anxiety in a month (I guess it was January of this year), you did not have anxiety. That is not a thing that anybody gets over without a load of pharmaceutical and therapeutic support, if then. So I'm glad you're better but AI was wrong-o once again.
And as your unsolicited editor, today's title also needed revision. I was expecting the necessary lacerating, and we had to wait until almost the end to learn that Claude is a pretty good buddy after all. Thank you as always, but pls. keep showing your work to human and not machines.
I can assure you that Claude played zero role in the authorship or editing of this essay.
And I certainly never claimed to "get rid of anxiety in a month!" Please do me the favor of reading more carefully.
"over the course of January, I largely vanquished the anxiety dragon...."
Thank you again for the always thought-provoking work!
Brilliant writing as usual. In many respects, you are your own AI, and your natural instincts produce elegant essays.
I also write but not for publication. I write short stories for my own amusement. The story themes spring from the characters' names, and they generally take on the persona of their names. Thus, "Baldwin Clinkscales" is a physicist but fancies himself a concert pianist. Not being a physicist or a pianist, I used ChatGPT as a research tool for some scientific and musical terms, etc. I specifically instruct ChatGPT not to write my stories, But it might respond: "...So for your Clinkscales story, you could say..." And it's perfect! What to do?
Well, since I write for amusement and personal challenge, I might take Chat's concept and rewrite it into my own words, simplistic as they are. But when the story ends, I know it is my story.
My current effort is The Horace Krappe Story. One of the jokes is that Krappe is pronounced "Krap-PEH. But no one pronounces it that way. Combined with Horace, the name brings potential amusement. In the story, Horace Krappe works in the city sewer department (surprise, surprise!). I know nothing about sewer systems. But ChatGPT does, and I use it for research. I pick and choose enough terms and descriptions to move the story along while keeping it light and entertaining.
Yes, AI is seductive. But applying Chat's far more sophisticated wording means it's no longer "my" story. I impose my own guardrails, just as you do. Do I ever cheat? Yep. But not much.
Again Brad, thanks for another provocative essay. You make me think.
Good grief