I have recently been trying to find a syndicator for my political/social essays, in order to keep my financial boat afloat in these critical times. There are precious few, it seems, and most of those carry a caveat.
Absolutely no AI use (of any kind) allowed in the writing process.
That smells to me of panic, and panic is never a positive contributor to either civil discourse or freedom of speech.
I understand where they’re coming from (they being the arbiters of who gets heard where, or at all).
AI has pretty much set the writing world aflame.
Social media sites offer the writing of a novel in your name (including publishing) with not much more than a vague outline of plot. Instant authorship, at the touch of a button…and a friendly fee.
Instant First Drafts that overcome “blank page syndrome” by generating outlines or full-text drafts in seconds.
Rapid Brainstorming, as AI (which hasn’t a ‘brain, but only a ‘memory’) takes over your keyboard.
Automated plagiarism, taking the worldwide work of others (with no attribution) and using its brilliance to enhance your own dumb style.
Instant correction of grammar, punctuation, and style errors (presuming you have any such talents), and
The final crime of allowing anyone (including businesses) to reel off high volumes of blog posts, emails, and social media copy with, essentially, no human effort.
No wonder the editorial world of approval to larger audiences is drowning babies in the attempt to clean up some pretty murky bathwater.
But the babies exist, and are worth an audience, and I am one of them.
Okay now, some explanation is due for such a claim, and I offer to hitch up my diaper and do my best.
First of all, I authored three novels, two non-fiction books, three volumes of poetry, and well over two thousand political and social essays before AI was born and shit all over the writers of my ilk. I looked up ‘ilk’ in a dictionary, because I’m old and many of my readers are young. “Ilk” is a noun that means a type, kind, class, or sort of person or thing that shares similar characteristics. (No AI was used or abused in finding that definition)
Secondly, if I need to define the exact date that Winston Churchill overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh (as I did in a recent article), there are damned few ways to do that without stepping on Artificial Intelligence’s foot. In ancient days, Google was one such source, but it is now a prohibited site as well. Writing takes time, and most writers (of my circumstances) can ill-afford research staff.
Thirdly, there is the issue of images, and it’s one where I agree with those who argue against its use, although I have little advice to offer. We have all watched an AI-generated Warren Buffett or Barack Obama offer either investment advice or political comfort. The imagery is precise, the lips synched, and the movements elegantly coordinated, because they are stolen imagery. Only the content is changed, to protect the guilty and confound the innocent. I don’t know what to do about that.
And, fourthly, there is something we writers call ‘voice,’ which is a protection, if you know the nuances of a writer. If I were so bold as to define mine; it is generally quiet, politically left-centric, ironic, and with a sense-of-humor that is definitely mine.
Case-in-point, I once tried out ChatGPT on writing an article for me, giving it pretty much the above instruction and an actual article of mine to read for voice and content. I no more than hit the ‘okay’ button (or whatever was its equivalent), before text began to spill out like a ribbon of stock-market quotations
I was amazed.
Then again, perhaps we oldsters are more easily amazed than the editors responsible for determining who does and who does not get chosen for a ride on the Syndicated Bus.
My subject was well covered, its size exactly the proscribed 1,000 words, elegantly paragraphed (my first clue) and cleverly avoiding irony (a fatal error to which I feel it is simply not yet well enough trained) and accurate in all details (which I had no way of knowing, having been prevented from fact checking).
And that is precisely the nut I feel must be cracked in this debate over use or non-use of AI.
It writes well enough, but has no feeling for the voice of Ted Koppel, Warren Buffett, or Barak Obama, for that matter. It may well (and likely soon) break down that barrier, because it’s advancing at such a lightning rate. (Remember the embarrassment of early Google?)
So, I have a suggestion (as you probably knew I would). I’m a Taurus, (a problem-solver by the stars that control my very soul).
“Writer Agreement Regarding Relationships with Those Who Control His Destiny.”
1) Writers under contract will use artificial intelligence (AI) only for the purposes of fact-checking, except as allowed below.
2) No AI assistance is allowed regarding voice-overs, or images in any context.
3) AI may not be used in structuring or confirming arguments.
4) Fact-finding is allowed, although fact-finding text is disallowed.
I’m not a lawyer, thank god, nor do I knowingly associate with them. So this whole doodle should be given legal approval, in order that it can cover a hundred or so pages instead of the few items outlined above.
I rest my case.
It’s been a heavy load to carry.
The image associated with this essay was created by ChatGPT.
God help me find a syndicator willing to put up with my all-too-human foibles.