I use artificial intelligence quite a bit. I have concerns regarding it, but it’s a handy research tool and personal assistant. I’m pretty sure that, at some point, ChatGPT will lead to something that will rise up and try to enslave humanity, but it’s not going to happen this week, and probably not in my lifetime.

Yet, as a writer, I don’t use AI in anything I write. That’s a line that I will never cross, not because I’m somehow more pure than others, but because I know that with my inherent laziness, I’d be the guy who would eventually just let AI do the work while I make the money.

Tilting At Windmills is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Which, to be honest, is probably what will piss Skynet off enough to try to enslave us in the first place.

The reason I bring this up, though, is this article at Inside Higher Ed . In it, four members of a special committee of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, writing scholars, argue that the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) obstructed their committee's efforts to publish guidance about generative AI, including the right of teachers and students to refuse its use.

In other words, it sounds like they want to force the issue, making students and teachers use generative AI to accomplish classroom work.

That’s troubling, to say the least, because while I think it’s a good idea for students to understand how to use AI — it’s not like it won’t show up in every avenue of work soon enough, after all — I also think that there’s nothing wrong with people being concerned about it.

Hell, I’m a pretty heavy user of AI, and I have concerns about it.

One of those is that, if we’re not careful, we’ll start letting AI do the thinking for us, and that’s horrifying.

Modern AI isn’t an independent system that starts by learning their ABCs and continues its education while also accumulating life experience, thus developing its own sense of self.

Instead, it’s built by people, fed information by people, updated with parameters by people, and you’re out of your freaking mind if you think no one would use it to guide “thinking” toward a potential goal if they thought they could.

Artificial intelligence is like a hammer or a screwdriver. It’s a tool, and it’s a very smart tool that can make our lives a lot easier if we use it correctly. It can do a lot of things, and students should be made aware of these and those who wish to use them can and should be permitted, but it should never be allowed or mandated to step in and take over the idea of writing for people.

Share

Yes, knowing how to make a fantastic prompt is almost an art form, one that I don’t really possess. But it’s not the same as writing a persuasive paper designed to convince someone that hot dogs are the best food ever. The argument might be dumb, but we can address that.

For the NCTE to do what is alleged is problematic because it’s essentially saying that no one should be permitted to opt out of using generative AI. It’s saying that people should have to use a computer to think for them, even if it’s just to take someone’s ideas and put them on the page.

If I didn’t already have issues with the educational establishment, this would sinch it.

---

Folks, things are hard this year, and I need your help. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here . Either would be greatly appreciated right now to help me get through this and to keep this Substack active for the foreseeable future.