I found this interesting because i’ve noticed guides to spotting AI writing popping up, eg em-dash usage, “It’s not just X, it’s Y”, things perenially grouped in threes. Not even mentioning the asinine emoji use.
Why do we assume it is correct to write the way it does? Are we that insecure?
Do we anticipate a backlash to this in readers? Or an authenticity arms race?
Naturally Busani’s article touches extensively on the history of having a language imposed, and wrestles with the sense of having finally moulded that language to their ends.
“QuillBot wants fluency, but not flavour. It wants output, not voice.”
Also kudos for giving a name to something that has been troubling me: epistemicide.
I love engaging with whether or not we should use AI as a tool to enhance our writing. I agree with you @Righard_Kapp and found this article to be a very thought-provoking read. Sometimes it’s too easy to give in to AI’s suggestions and it forces you, as a trained writer, to go against your gut instinct, questioning your own original thoughts. My main issue with AI as a writing tool and prompt is that it takes away authenticity. And very interestingly as Ngcaweni points out, it’s very much also about identity.
I have been known to say there are few things harder than writing about something you don’t care about, and i suspect this is where AI plugs gaps handily.
But as a reader i don’t have time for slop.
As you say, it is about identity and i wonder if the unintended side effect will be us leaning IN to our idiosyncracies? I’m here for it if so.