Man vs. Machine: Navigating the Ethics of AI in Creative Writing
As the world moves closer to an AI-powered reality, we face unprecedented challenges and quandaries. There is no doubt that the use of tools is improving people’s ability to perform their duties in ways that were unthinkable just a few years ago. Developers, coders, but also content writers and, more specifically, academics and authors, can now take advantage of a vast array of tools to increase productivity and effectiveness, which should be regarded as a boon, but it comes with significant risks, and it is critical to delve into these domains in order to understand the distinction that lies squarely and neatly at the heart of this quandary. Where does the existence of the creation itself reside — in the author’s mind or in a machine’s imagination?
With the chat GPT code interpreter already in use, many developers and writers are wondering what their role will be in this brave new world. It’s a clear indication that things are moving quickly, with much more on the horizon promising even faster and more sophisticated levels of analysis and output production in a world where AI will become the world and humans, unless they fully grasp the capacity of this technology, are potentially liable to become subservient to the whims and fancies of routinized AI via the workings of industrial capitalism, with its tentacles in surveillance. But, while there is assistance available to encourage output, will its quality and potential sophistication outstrip the needs and desires of ordinary humans to the point where it dictates the order of human existence through its day-to-day calculations? As robots become smarter than humans, humans will become subservient to them, unable to comprehend the magnitude of what robots are ultimately capable of accomplishing, leaving a significant portion of the world’s population at the mercy of the machine. It will not only change people’s behaviour, but it will also change their ability to think critically and independently, especially if the content they are reading was produced by a machine that can only think in predictable ways. Is their ability to create original content doomed to extinction, or will the human touch in crafting stories retain its irreplaceable allure?
The advent of AI has raised serious concerns and legitimate questions. What is the role of writers if AI can generate an amalgamation of ideas based on specific prompts? When does a writer cease to be a writer if their only ability is to generate prompts in a series of subsequent conversational engagements with a machine that dictates the passage of play? On the one hand, there is the undeniable convenience of AI — it is efficient, precise, and grammatically correct. On the other hand, we are confronted with an existential crisis and the unsettling prospect of giving up our independent thought process for the sake of efficiency. This uneasy scenario creates a new ethical quandary. Is AI merely a tool that enhances our existing ideas, or is it entering the unsettling realm of a co-creator? What is the line between AI’s assistance in improving grammar or rephrasing sentences and the creation of the entire output with only a sprinkling of human ideas? This hazy line of distinction is at the heart of the ethical quandary that both writers and developers face.
It’s critical to understand that, while AI has advanced to incredible levels, it still lacks the capacity for original thought, abstract reasoning, and emotional depth that humans have. The power of AI lies in its ability to analyse large datasets and generate text based on patterns, rather than in its ability to create something from nothing. Thank goodness, this is still very evident from the output of machines designed to compute quickly, gather information, and filter output to meet the needs of the questioner. While this may suffice for mathematical computational probing, an artificially intelligent machine will never understand human philosophical, cultural, intellectual, and ultimately deeply individual sentimentality.
We need to reconsider our relationship with these AI companions. Rather than seeing them as competitors out to replace us, we should see them as tools — advanced and impressive tools, to be sure, but tools nonetheless, meant to aid us in our creative endeavours. Let us not be afraid of what they have to offer but rather see it as a resource with great potential for good whose power must be harnessed by hands that understand what is at stake. Individual responsibility is ultimately borne by the individual. The AI makes no claim to ideas or ethics; it is simply a reflection of its user. As a result, it is up to humans to decide how much of their creation they are willing to attribute to AI. The central thesis boils down to the purpose of using AI. Do we seek its assistance to improve our existing work, or do we let it be the primary creator while we merely polish the edges? The guiding force should be the voice inside our heads — our moral compass.
In the face of such ethical quandaries, it’s critical to remember that writing is more than just words strung together. It’s a delicate jigsaw puzzle of thoughts, emotions, experiences, and points of view — a distinctly human endeavour. The emergence of AI as a tool to aid in this process is indeed ground-breaking, but it is not without ethical implications. We must tread carefully as we enter this uncharted territory, ensuring that the machines we’ve built to help us do not end up defining us. After all, the essence of creation should remain inherently human, and no AI can replicate that.
