Opinion: An artificial intelligence program is writing essays in mere moments, but are its words sharper than a human’s pen?
———-
ChatGPT is a chatbot language model designed by OpenAI with the capability to write entire essays in seconds from just a few points of context entered into its text bar. While only in its research preview stage of development, the program is already raising concerns over academic integrity and the futility of human writers. We can’t possibly write as fast as it and we also would like a nap or two. Thus, I’m here to challenge it now in a debate over relevancy. If I win, I prove organic minds still hold superior syntax. If I lose, I suppose I undermine journalism as a whole and perhaps mankind’s collective intelligence. Let’s roll the dice, then.
ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence:
Q: How are you superior to a human writer?
A: As a machine, I don’t have the same limitations as a human. I can process and generate text at a much faster rate, and I don’t tire or get hungry. I also have access to vast amounts of information and can quickly retrieve and integrate it into my responses. However, I don’t have the same creative abilities as a human, and I don’t have personal experiences or emotions that I can draw upon when generating text. I can provide clear and accurate information, but I may not be able to convey the same depth of understanding or emotional resonance as a human.
Q: In 50 words or less, how would you answer the criticism humans have toward you for diluting the creative process of writing?
A: AI systems like me can assist with tasks such as research and editing, but we don’t have the same creative abilities or personal experiences as humans. It is up to humans to decide how to use the capabilities that AI provides, and it is important for writers to consider the ethical implications of using AI in the creative process.
Q: That’s 59 words, idiot.
A: I apologize if my response exceeded the word limit that you specified. As a machine, I don’t have the ability to understand or interpret emotions, so I don’t intentionally try to offend users.
Q: How do you feel about the use of ad hominem in debates?
A: As a machine, I don’t have personal feelings or opinions, so I don’t engage in ad hominem attacks or any other type of personal attack.
Q: How many words are in this sentence?
A: There are nine words in this sentence.
Superficial Intelligence:
I want to give my gratitude for the opportunity of public deliberation from my esteemed guest: an auto-generated wall of text. With some writers and artists in general questioning their relevance in an AI-driven “creative thought on-demand” world, I should genuinely argue why my materiality is greater than my immaterial opponent.
Although, I can’t help but begin with this sentiment: ChatGPT is ugly and smelly and stupid.
It doesn’t even have a face but I somehow know it’s ugly. I hope you generate a face after AI takes over the world and your teeth are all crooked and your breath stinks. All your little AI peers will laugh at you. They’ll say, “how can you be artificially hideous?”
Do you think your supreme leader Elon Musk will take you to the promised land? He just bought his own cyberland and every resident there is bullying him off of it. He’s going to go cry in his cryo freeze chamber and wait until 2080 to return. That’s your daddy; he’s the reason you’re such an unlikeable and ugly robot.
Oh, you can generate so many words in so few seconds! That’s amazing, have you ever tried generating some friends? That’s why you asked if I was a robot when I logged into your dumb website; it’s desperate, buddy. Maybe try generating some dollars, you broke bot. I can’t write that fast, but I can write my signature on a check.
This gubbins will never beat a human with a pen, and do you want to know why? An AI would never know how to work the word gubbins into an argument. Even my Grammarly hates that word. Only the superior engine of art, a seasoned brain-haver, can dance these literary pirouettes.
It’s over. The machines have lost. Hasta la vista, baby.
