There is an absurd new trend in town that annoys me a lot. Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom instilled fear in me about the implications of artificial general intelligence (AGI). And while I’m still concerned about the dangers of AI to humanity, I’m increasingly annoyed by how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is already being misused by some people.
I have noticed some friends who are using GenAI to draft text messages for private and group chats. As you can imagine, I have confronted them, both privately and publicly. As a grammar stickler, I’m dedicated to ending cruelty caused by AI misuse, which is very unlegislated, as you may be well aware.
The practice annoys me for a couple of reasons: a) it shows that the person I’m conversing with does not respect my time, and b) it is at a great detriment to our society that we cannot think and relay our thoughts without the help of AI.
Let’s take an example: We are chatting about the politics of our country. While I’m trying to genuinely think about the current state of affairs, translating my thoughts into text messages, you, on the other side, copy-paste my replies into a GenAI application for a “pragmatic” response. Does this show that you have respect for my time? I don’t think so.
You are simply not putting thoughts into the topic at hand. Therefore, why should I spend my highly valued time to engage with you via chats?
Secondly, how are we going to authentically advance our cultures when we delegate our thinking process to AI? The debates in group chats are no longer authentic because of the fear that some people are deploying AI to think for them. All of a sudden, someone who liked abusing emojis is no longer doing so; instead, they now reply with well-punctuated sentences with em dashes (aka ChatGPT hyphens) and semicolons.
All their points are pragmatic, analyzing both the pros and cons. You really can’t tell which side of the debate they are on.
Even as a grammarian wanker, as Lynne Truss or Stephen Fry would refer to me (Truss proudly so, Fry grudgingly so), I’m concerned about the well-polished and highly-punctuated text messages that I have recently started seeing in private and group chats. Obviously, this is not an attack or spite on my friends. Instead, it is an attack on a bad behavior that I think is detrimental to our society.
I want to talk to human beings, not bots. I want to hear your raw thoughts, not those polished by AI. Messaging is quite an intimate act that should not be outsourced to third-party agents. Similarly, discourses in group chats are meant to foster raw and deeper understanding among participants. Employing AI in such spaces is just ethically wrong. It’s cheating.
It has no swag. In fact, channeling my inner nerd, the practice is quite retrogressive.
Now, let me make this clear: I’m not against the complete use of GenAI. If anything, it’s a great productivity tool. I use it every day. What I’m fighting for is the role of authenticity in human relationships.
These days, I have come to appreciate more attending physical discourses. It allows me to hear people’s raw thoughts on issues. This is the reason I keep on attending Penda Kujua’s book club discussions, sometimes even if I haven’t read the book of the month. Just to hear people’s raw thoughts on various matters. This is increasingly becoming a luxury, especially in online spaces.
Currently, AI ethics in academic spaces is a hot topic, and various tools and methods are being tested to curb misuse. Unfortunately, no one is talking about AI ethics in private and group chats. Ironically, that silence might explain the mess we are currently in.
I’m an advocate for self-determinism in adopting technological tools. As such, I’d like to bring your attention to the alleged goals of designers of these proliferating GenAI tools. Just like social media, GenAI designers often optimize the tools for addictive behavior by the users.
Have you noticed the endless suggestions on how ChatGPT can further help you at the end of each of its response outputs? These “frictionless” conversational engagements are only meant to sustain your attention but undermine deep reflection and wisdom.
Extensive research is currently being undertaken to explore the implications of GenAI on users’ cognitive well-being. Therefore, it is vital for users to consciously utilize these tools.
Lastly, the tool is only as good as the user. A friend who blindly uses ChatGPT to draft social media post captions, emails, or text messages will eventually be identified. The labeling will develop among the people you engage with. This will lead to distrust in your contributions to discourses.
Eventually, your reputation will suffer, and if you have read Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, you’ll know that, unlike most laws, reputation has no reversal; even if you try to rebuild it, suspicion will always linger.
