AI and the Human Factor

I was planning to post a book review today, but I’ll probably do that next week. My mind kept bringing me back to the content of three great essays I read over the last couple of weeks.

One of those essays used Artificial Intelligence (AI) during the writing process, and it was really good. I recommend you read it. It was published by The Wall Street Journal with the title “AI: Ghostwriter in the Machine” by James Taranto. It felt very human to me because a person actually wrote it but used AI to improve it. He explained the process he uses in the opening paragraph:

“I run partial or complete drafts through a chatbot and ask what it thinks. It spits out copious suggestions, some of which inspire me to make revisions and improvements. AI is also an immensely powerful research tool, able to find useful information via queries too vague or abstract to be effective in an ordinary Google search. For this essay, I used it to track down a magazine article I dimly remembered reading almost 40 years ago. As you’ll see, that old piece turned out to contain a killer quote.”

What the three pieces have in common is the human factor that needs to remain alive during the writing process.

In the essay, there is a mention of a piece written by investor Stanley Druckenmiller that was tagged by Pangram, an AI detector. When asked by a journalist about the article and whether he used AI, Mr. Druckenmiller said:

“Of course I used AI…I was a B student in English, but an A-plus in economics.”

Then he said the most important part:

“These are my ideas and I’ve been speaking about them for over 15 years, as anyone who knows me. Would I prefer that I was a great writer? Yes, but that’s not who I am.”

That’s key to the whole discussion about AI use in writing, that the human experience cannot be easily replaced. One thing is for a person with no background in economics to ask AI to write a piece about economics and publish it; it is another for a person with decades of experience in economics to write a piece and run it through AI to improve the grammar, style, etc.

By the way, the same essay argues that people have been using ghostwriters for decades. Using AI instead of a ghostwriter—that’s an idea.

On that note, I recommend watching this video of Prince Harry walking away in the middle of his speech because the teleprompter stopped working. That’s what happens when you depend on technology, too much and don’t know or internalize what you wrote.

Coming back to the ghostwriting story. Kyle Crichton, who was The New York Times’ deputy op-ed editor, said the following in 1988:

“If we insisted that every politician write his own piece, we’d either get terrible pieces or none at all.”

This essay connected to the other two essays I read in The Economist, wonderfully. One discussed using AI to solve mathematical problems, and the other argued that surrendering human authorship of novels, speeches, and even news articles to AI would be a mistake, but that “writers of all sorts would be doing their readers a disservice if they did not use AI models for research, proofreading and, when appropriate, feedback.”

The essay about AI solving mathematical problems went straight to the core issue of what we are missing when AI solves a problem for us, which is:

“What is often more valuable is that the process of arriving at important proofs leads to the asking of yet more questions and the creation of new areas of study.”

That quote highlights the key human factor: our ability to identify and generate new ideas while engaging in the thinking and writing process. That’s the beauty of our brains, something that cannot be replicated by AI, at least not yet.

Later in the essay, I read this, and it made me laugh because it’s so true:

“Airdropping someone on the summit of Mount Everest is rather different from climbing it.”

The other essay about humans not surrendering their authorship to AI was very direct about the significance of writing:

“The act of writing tends to be painful, even for many of those who do it for a living. But much of that pain is really the pain of thinking, of crystallizing thoughts in text. Sidestepping that is a sure-fire route to less rigorous, let alone original, human thought.”

In the end, the whole discussion about AI is really about what humans will lose in the long run. Yes, AI can solve decades-long, complicated mathematical problems in seconds, and novels can be written in minutes. But what about our reasoning skills, our imagination, and our ability to wonder?

A lot is at stake, so let us be judicious about our use of AI. Technology is meant to improve and enhance the human experience, not to replace it.

73 thoughts on “AI and the Human Factor”

  1. Oh my. The portion you highlighted hits home for me, Edward — about the importance of writing for catharsis as opposed to “farming it out” to AI. Struggling and really thinking…”crystallizing thoughts” and making meaning matters. It’s visceral, spiritual — anything but mechanical or programmable. I feel every bit of that, with my mental health lens in place, probably skewing my beliefs and ideals. Write from the heart…cross check and receive input/feedback if you like…but let in begin from within.
    Thanks, as always, for making me think. You’re amazing! 💝💝💝

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. The thing that gets me is when AI competes with humans and wins. When you compare it (to help with writing) to using a ghost writer, like yes okay, sounds harmless but that ghost writer was a human being, a person. Maybe their livelihood depended on helping write that book for someone. Now AI is going to replace it? That’s terrible.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, CJ, and great point about ghostwriters. My sense is that they’re not going to be hit too hard, at least, not those who work with very important clients. Most ghostwriters need to spend significant time with the person they’re writing about because they need to gather as much information as possible about that person’s daily life and other experiences. I don’t think people at that level have time to sit down and write an autobiography, or any book. They might think it’s a good idea but not want to do the writing themselves, so they’ll definitely hire a ghostwriter. I don’t see them using AI for that purpose. But, of course, I might be wrong, so we’ll see.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  5. Hi Edward
    Thanks for this great post 🙏 🙏
    Like most people we know we use AI for polishing our style as we are not native speakers. We also let AI inspire us and use it for translation and quick research. We wouldn’t like to miss it.
    The Fab Four of Cley
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re very welcome. You brought up an excellent point about translation. I think AI has significantly improved communication across the globe. I never thought I’d be reading blog posts in other languages one day, but AI has made that possible. This is one aspect that isn’t being highlighted, so thank you for mentioning it.

      Like

      Reply

  6. I hear what you (and they) are saying, Edward … and I was slowly pondering the use of A.I. to ‘critique’ my recent post ‘Uber Intelligenz’ and to publish that review.
    However I am determined to hang on to my idiosyncratic intellectual frailty, even though I might be striving to do better. Of course AI might serve that purpose but I wonder how often it will, which leads me to a haiku:
    ~
    coulda, woulda, shoulda
    a false god blessed the lazy
    so favoured A I.
    ~
    Cheers Edward,
    I love your work.
    Kind regards,
    DD

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I totally understand. I think AI can be a great helper, but of course, it’s up to each person to decide how to use it. I know a lot of people who publish draft posts without even checking the spelling. Their philosophy is that they’ll publish whatever comes to mind, “as is.” That’s okay with me, too. We have free will, after all.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. So true. I’d rather have simple English than very fancy one written by AIs. But I used AI for my grammars, but at least the thought and experience are mine.

    Thought-provoking piece, Edward!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. A thought-provoking reflection on the place of AI in writing and thinking. I agree that AI can be a powerful assistant for research, proofreading and refining ideas, but the human experience behind those ideas must remain at the centre. The distinction between using AI to improve our thinking and using it to replace our thinking is crucial. The Everest analogy says it beautifully—we may reach the summit faster with technology, but we risk missing the journey that teaches us how to climb.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. This is a great article. Very interesting points raised, which I agree with. AI can be a great tool, but I have misgivings about what can happen when people let someone or something do the thinking for them. And AI can be an amazing search tool, but at the same time it can be a major source of misinformation because it doesn’t always get it right and confabulates wildly to give the impression of accuracy. It’s a powerful thing that has value, but needs to be used with caution. And that’s a real problem, something that convincing makes it too easy to drop one’s guard and forget to proceed with caution.
    And by the way, thanks so much for your contribution last week, I really appreciate it. 🙏

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, and you bring up a good point about misinformation. I’m seeing a lot of it while using AI for research. When you ask AI to show you the sources for the information it provides, sometimes it cites a comment someone made on Reddit, which is definitely not a reliable source. I typically use the “deep thinking” or “think harder” options when searching, and I always ask for sources so I can check the information. It’s tedious, for sure, but better than searching on Google.

      About the contribution, you’re welcome! It was a real pleasure.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. I agree 100% that AI can take over much, and it does ruin imagination and wonderment. I often find myself feeling substantially more dumb when I use it.

    On the other hand, I, too, utilize it as a writing partner. My consistent prompt follows the line of: DO NOT rewrite, but provide feedback on the flow of my work, word choice, sentence structure, and including conflict.

    I don’t always listen, but AI does offer some decent inspiration. Revision is tough, especially alone and on small scale content. However, I don’t believe fully AI-written material is as valuable as human-created ones.

    Where do you see the ethical line?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comment. AI is a great helper. The ethical line? That’s a tough one. I think recent court cases in which lawyers have presented case briefings to judges as if they had written them themselves, only for the judges to discover that the information was wrong and AI had been used, are clear examples of ethical violations. If you don’t have the knowledge to defend what you wrote with AI because the ideas weren’t yours, that’s a problem.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. I think economics and math articles are one thing, but AI in fiction, comedy, drama, etc. is going to be the real test. Paraphrasing from a scene in The Comeback on HBO, “how’s AI gonna replace a room full of comedy writers—flawed, complicated people—who can turn their pain into jokes?”

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  12. Yes, technology is constantly improving. Soon, predictive text will be on another level. Instead of words, entire sentences. And as long as this forced on us, and we are the forced to correct it… the LLM learns and starts behaving just like you.
    And this is happening rapidly.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Constantly improving, yes, indeed. I noticed that AI can check what I write on my iPhone if I want it to, and I just received an email from Microsoft saying that Copilot can manage Outlook. Yeah, that’s exactly what we need, AI accessing our emails.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I know Gmail has it doing that as part of the upgrade. It can be switched off, but how many people will go through that headache.
        Grammarly already suggests corrections on any connected device. There is no avoiding it unless we diligently pursue it ourselves.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  13. Planning, researching, and then writing a piece is a lot of work. Two or three drafts in, and sometimes you’re still dissatisfied.. Grammarly tries to rewrite entire sentences, copilot literally thinks all your writing is trash, and suddenly you’re questioning yourself and your abilities. I can also see why many just toss it all at the technology to complete. I recently ran the first chapter of a manuscript I wrote in 2004 through an AI detector. Apparently, I was ahead of the technology.. 93% AI. I just laughed.
    My fear with AI is that I’ll become lazy..lose my creativity. It dulls the senses. Like a drug.
    I use it very efficiently at work, though. Projects and deadlines are streamlined. Processes have perfect outlines… notes summarized… even emails taken care of.
    There are benefits to it. But I worry about what it’s doing to the generation that has been born with it.
    A solid post as always, Edward.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I hear you. I use Grammarly occasionally, and it can be a pain. I read somewhere that Grammarly is coming out with a way to disable all rewrite recommendations and stick to grammar checks. I’ve tried Copilot on a couple of times, and it rewrites everything in a way that doesn’t sound anything like what you’re trying to say. The same is true of Gemini. I think AI detectors will eventually become irrelevant because AI will sooner or later write in a way that resembles how we write. AI is literally consuming what everyone writes and posts, so detectors are a waste of time and only create drama. I know AI detectors are a big business now, so the drama will continue a while longer.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  14. excellent work on this Ed! there is much to synthesize in this AI paradigm but at least one key provision is that we must be responsible in our uses and what we direct it for. I’m not going to go as far as to say AI is like Prometheus giving humans fire but there is – at least – something significant in its arrival.

    your call for care and nuance is well received. not only for the tech stuff but also, as you rightly pointed, the human capacity to wonder: which drove the very will to create AI in the first place.

    enjoy your well-deserved cup of coffee for this post!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Mike. Coffee sounds good right about now. Absolutely! We’re talking about using AI for simple tasks, but there are people working on using AI in dangerous ways. People need to be more concerned about that than about an author using AI to write a book.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. Another thought-provoking post, my friend. I agree with you, and I’d also read the WSJ piece.

    Even my second- and third-grade students knew — and wrote in a book of advice I gave to President Obama when we met in the Oval Office — “always show your work and explain your thinking.” Technology should assist, improve, and enhance our experience and capabilites, not replace our thinking. I remember when pocket calculators, computers, the Internet, cell phones, GPS, and so much more were “new technology.” Tech thinking for us and influencing our actions is not new… and not done by a longshot. You are right. Let us be judicious indeed.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Natalie. Your examples are so good. The calculator, my God, I remember that transition. It’s funny because I still have a multiplication chart printed out on my desk that my son used when he was doing that kind of math. GPS, wow! Now I’m wondering whether people complained when those first came out. Driving to an unfamiliar place using GPS is much better than using a paper map, that’s for sure.

      Like

      Reply

  16. That Economist quote comparing AI shortcuts to ‘airdropping someone on Mount Everest rather than climbing it’ captures the entire debate so perfectly. The struggle of thinking and writing really is where original insights are born! I completely agreed with Rosaliene Bacchus and drgeraldstein that surrendering that process risks dulling our reasoning skills over time. I also loved Rose’s question about Socrates and memory—and your reply about needing paper notes was so relatable! Thanks for raising such an essential discussion.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Right? It completely reframes the whole argument—climbing the mountain is where all the real growth and learning happen! I really want students to read actual papers which are present with the institutions so that they would know the hardwork of the person who wrote it.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Exactly! Great point about students reading papers. It’s important for them to know how hard it is to actually write them, but there’s also no replacement for reading the papers themselves. Students will miss little details and connections, which are important to understand a particular subject, if they depend solely on AI.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. Absolutely! I think the essay about AI solving math problems highlighted that issue. The same is probably true in chemistry and other sciences. I still remember how we found alternative paths for chemical reactions in college, all through trial and error. If AI gives you the perfect path to a solution every time, we lose the element of “discovery” that we’re so good at.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  18. I really enjoyed this post, Edward. Something that started rattling around in my brain is how recently I’ve been creating video book reviews and sharing the captioning from it. That way, people have an option if they want to engage with my work visually or audibly. Someone pointed out to me that I am rather verbose when I make videos compared to my old post that were taxed only. I replied to her that the issue is I spent a lot of time fussing over each sentence, making sure that my sentence structures and styles aren’t too repetitive. Considering that I do this for enjoyment and not money, I would prefer to make a 10-minute video then sit there for hours trying to put together my thoughts into nice little sentences. I say this as a person who taught English writing as a college professor for 11 years. I also like to remind people, that historically, as a species, we have been oral. We used to tell stories about God’s and our families and things that people have done, and at one point in time it was considered a weakness to write down our stories because it meant you were too feeble-minded to memorize them. Therefore, I am on board with the economist. He’s an economist, not a writer. I also want to add that I read a memoir not that long ago that had a fascinating topic, but it was not written well. The author either needed a co-author or a ghost writer or something, because the book was lackluster, which was a shame. I think more people should know his story. Consider that even right now, I am voicing this message. I am talking into my phone and saying the word “period.” That means I’m not actually spelling anything. Does that make my comment less genuine? I love all these different topics that your post brought up. Great job!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much for your excellent comment. Your example is perfect. Your comment is 100% genuine because it represents you, and that’s what matters. People can tell when something is written entirely by AI. There’s no heart in it. It’s sad to hear about that author. If someone has an important story to tell and needs the help of a ghostwriter to bring it to life, then they should pursue that option.

      Like

      Reply

  19. A timely article, Edward—thank you for the links. You summed up the issue perfectly: AI is not meant to replace people, but to work alongside us so we can achieve better results. Just as transportation evolved from walking, to inventing the wheel, then wagons, and then vehicles, AI should serve as a helpful teammate that helps us get to where we’re trying to go.
    Also do you think Socrates was right, written words make our memory worse? I went to a poetry event where the poet challenged us to carry a poem in our heart, one we created ourselves, and were not allowed to write down. I’m still struggling with the assignment.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Rose. I think Socrates was wrong because 99% of us aren’t that good. I’m bad at memorizing things, and it literally takes me two or three days to memorize the key talking points for a presentation. That’s one of the reasons I write everything down on paper. Writing on paper helps me remember important information so I can refer back to it when I need it. Yeah, I would probably receive an “F” on that assignment myself.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  21. You wrote a very interesting and thoughtful essay. I don’t think it is anything wrong with taking help from AI to write things, create images to support the essay / story, etc., as long as you are upfront about it, that you are not replacing all of your writing with AI, or misusing AI, or blindly trust something factual it says instead of doing fact checking and making sure you understand the context. I think your last sentence is a good summary “A lot is at stake, so let us be judicious about our use of AI. Technology is meant to improve and enhance the human experience, not to replace it.”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely, and I think that’s the consensus among many professional writers and editors. AI is extremely useful for reviewing a draft before publication. As the essay in The Economist said, it’s a real disservice to readers not to use AI for research, proofreading, and feedback to improve the writing.

      There’s nothing quite like AI’s ability to create images. It’s amazing what it can do. I actually took a picture of an area in my backyard and asked AI for landscaping recommendations. It generated an image incorporating those recommendations. It was awesome!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  23. Your last paragraph is the essential one, Edward. The ease of asking AI for help is rather like an alcoholic keeping a bottle of alcohol always within reach.

    Young people, especially, will run the danger of never fully learning how to think for themselves, write well, and do the difficult things attached to both of those.

    The ease of dependency on Al in multiple tasks humans used to do and still do is a quiet menace pretending to be your best friend.

    We live in complicated and dangerous times.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. So true, especially the part about “pretending to be your best friend.” The trends in that area are scary, and I’m sure you’ve read the reports about people using AI in lieu of therapy and the terrible consequences that have occurred on some occasions. We are definitely living in dangerous times.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. 😂 Funny enough, since the article mentioned AI detectors, I ran mine through a couple of them, and the assessment was 98% human and 2% AI. The 2% was the last sentence, which was hilarious because most of the post are quotations, so there was no need to use AI in this piece.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. I don’t know whether I should say this. Whenever students give their essays or assignments (especially for science subjects in college), most of them show that 71-84% of human cognizance but we know that a particular student haven’t gone through the required study materials, even sometimes I’ve found students quoting such papers which are unreachable for them (they are behind high paywall that a student won’t buy just to write that paper). It’s seriously a problem.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. To be very frank, I’m not a teacher but my friends are. Since it’s part of internal assessment, they do give average or sometimes above average grades. But they also try to explain this matter to students, and students sometimes respond with unexpected answers. e.g. they would say that their career lies some other fields which wouldn’t require these papers. But the true intention of these exercises is to teach the hardwork.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

Leave a comment