Is this the dark side of ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence?
Is the line between plagiarism and inspiration blurring beyond recognition or has it always been blurred?
The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT raises concerns about their potential impact on the future of writing. While it may seem that these tools have the potential to produce vast amounts of content quickly and efficiently, the reality is that they lack the nuance, context, and creativity of human writers.
The other day, I read an article written by Priya Gohil, "Robowriters of the World Unite and Take Over", which cast a cautionary shade over the ChatGPT issue by asking,
"Is AI the destruction of creative writing?" And more directly, as the author queried,
So, of course, I lit the QWERTY and began to investigate and explore this issue with the help of my newest assistant, GPT.
First I asked, GPT, "Grade the following content." pasting a copy into the machine. Its response was more of a summary:
"The author describes the recent release of the free-to-use tool ChatGPT by OpenAI and its growing impact in the fields of academia, literature, and scientific publishing. The tool is noted for its ability to match patterns and generate original content, but also raises concerns about detecting plagiarism and the reliability of AI-written text.
Despite its limitations, the author believes that ChatGPT's future potential lies in its ability to assist businesses with their specific industries. However, the author ultimately argues that ChatGPT cannot replace the complexity and analysis that a human can bring to writing."
I pressed,
"is the article written well and what grade would it receive?"
GPT,
"The article is well-written, clear, and organized. The author provides a balanced overview of the capabilities and limitations of the ChatGPT tool and its impact on writing and the future. The author's personal observations and opinions add to the article's interest and provide a personal perspective. If the article was being graded, I would give it a B+."
A B+ is not bad. Not bad at all.
I didn't stop there,
"Rewrite in the style of Hemingway with a more positive spin."
GPT,
"ChatGPT, the cutting-edge AI tool from OpenAI, has been making waves in the world of academia and publishing. The tool, released in November 2022, has already secured authorship credits on several published papers. Its quick success is a testament to the power of AI-generated content and the promise of even more advanced tools to come.
ChatGPT excels at pattern recognition and generating original combinations of words, making it ideal for academic work. This will pose new challenges for teachers to detect plagiarism, but OpenAI has responded to these concerns by releasing a classifier tool to detect AI-written text. While the tool is not yet foolproof, it is a step in the right direction.
Despite the hype, ChatGPT is not a replacement for human writing. Its output lacks the nuance and complexity of a skilled writer and relies on existing content. However, its ability to automate tedious tasks and augment human knowledge workers is valuable in a business setting.
ChatGPT may not match the artistic prowess of poets and songwriters, but it has its admirers and offers exciting possibilities for the future. The human hand will never be replaced, but ChatGPT and AI technologies can assist in making our work more efficient and impactful."
Then, "rewrite from a negative perspective"
GPT,
"ChatGPT, a tool released by OpenAI, is making its way into the world of academia, literature, and even scientific publishing. Its use is concerning, as some researchers struggle to distinguish between content generated by the chatbot and content written by actual scientists. This is a clear example of the potential negative impact AI-generated content will have on society.
ChatGPT is highly skilled in pattern matching and generating original combinations of words, making it a threat to traditional forms of academic work. Teachers may find it difficult to detect plagiarism and universities are even considering returning to traditional pen-and-paper methods of assessment. Some schools have gone as far as to ban ChatGPT entirely.
OpenAI has attempted to address concerns by releasing a new "classifier" tool, but it has been warned that it is not yet reliable. The tool's usefulness is limited, and it may not even be possible to detect all AI-generated text.
ChatGPT may appear to be a threat to human writing, but it is far from being able to match the complexity and nuance of human writing. It is not an expert, editor, or capable of capturing the true essence of what it means to be human. The reliance on AI to digest, rearrange, and regurgitate existing content could lead to an endless cycle of repetition.
In the future, businesses may train ChatGPT on their knowledge bases, making it even more dangerous. This could potentially lead to the degradation of critical tasks that require human creativity and expertise. The future looks bleak for human writing and creativity, as the potential for AI to take over and undermine our abilities grows by the day."
Good stuff, rewritten for both sides of an argument.
One last press, I posed the author's own question to GTP,
"My prompt can be “Will ChatGPT cause the destruction of writing?”
GPT,
"The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT raises concerns about their potential impact on the future of writing. While it may seem that these tools have the potential to produce vast amounts of content quickly and efficiently, the reality is that they lack the nuance, context, and creativity of human writers.
ChatGPT and its future successors are simply rearranging existing content, and unless humans continue to generate original material, all AI writing will simply be an endless loop of regurgitated information. Additionally, the current limitations and high costs of running ChatGPT mean that it may never reach its full potential.
While it is possible that AI tools like ChatGPT will play a role in some businesses and industries, they will never replace the unique qualities and skills that human writers bring to the table."
I guess it is a better response than, "I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that."
###
No comments:
Post a Comment