This topic burns fresh for me, as I recently paid a resume writer who unabashedly took my money in exchange for 100% AI generated content. When I confronted her about her use of AI, she ghosted me. I suppose this was better than receiving her AI generated response on how to handle a dissatisfied customer.
What strikes me about your article, Anna, is that we're finding it harder and harder to be human. Instead of working through bumps in our friendships, we outsource the work of authenticity, and/or move on.
As a thanatologist, I've seen AI creep further and further into the world of death, an area we were already having trouble submersing ourselves in. There are now AI platforms catering to those in need of eulogies, obituaries, and grief counseling.
A decade ago, I was a research assistant for a software developer writing an app that diagnosed complicated grief. I recall sitting with the clients who volunteered to test the app, and how confused, put-off, and angry they were by the tech-driven responses to their very real, traumatic losses. Today, there are several grief apps, and bereaved individuals are turning to AI on their own looking for support in their grief. What does this say about our ability to be with each other in tragedy?
We're outsourcing our emotions, as well as our mortality, to AI.
Thank you for sharing, Laura - these are really valuable thoughts. Amazing that she ghosted you after you called her out. I was at an event recently and someone who introduced herself as a "writer" told me she uses AI to ghostwrite all of the articles that she "writes" for executives... I agree that it's a question of how to be human. It's so tempting to opt-out, because being human is hard and we may disappoint (ourselves and others). It does not surprise me that eulogies and obituaries are also often written by AI. We must learn to embrace imperfection in these contexts. I would like to see a survey asking if people would be offended if they found out a serious text / wedding vow or speech / eulogy was written by AI. My hunch is people would prefer imperfection over tech-generated soullessness...
Such a good article! I have been thinking so much in how these static predictable interactions with AI bots is going to alter our true humanity. As you put it; there is much in the line. Moreover with the trend to use AI for therapy. What happens when we outsource our grief and our humanity to a bot? How is these altering how we create life together, how we relate? With other but more pressingly - with ourselves.
That’s a good question. I suspect many AI texts are hybrid to some extent - we must input something. Maybe there’s a rough outline input, some background perhaps, and then AI works its “magic.” It really brings up questions of what percentage is too much - over 50%? Or is it in the laziness / unwillingness to edit AI’s suggestions? When does it become offensive?
I use AI a lot in my creative work, but only as an assistant. I'll use AI images to illustrate and add visual stimulation. I guess it's hybrid to that extent. But that's been true since word processing was developed. The actual content is always mine. I would feel like I was cheating if I put out something that wasn't the result of my brainwork. I can't imagine sending someone an AI generated text and passing it off as a personal statement. That seems...I guess the sociological term is "icky." But then again, there's spell check and grammar check, word prediction algorythms. That's working its way into my content. All of this reminds me of the Borg (I'm dating myself). What is the line between interacting and interfacing? The norms are not clear yet. We're on our own. Great stuff for sociological analysis.
This topic burns fresh for me, as I recently paid a resume writer who unabashedly took my money in exchange for 100% AI generated content. When I confronted her about her use of AI, she ghosted me. I suppose this was better than receiving her AI generated response on how to handle a dissatisfied customer.
What strikes me about your article, Anna, is that we're finding it harder and harder to be human. Instead of working through bumps in our friendships, we outsource the work of authenticity, and/or move on.
As a thanatologist, I've seen AI creep further and further into the world of death, an area we were already having trouble submersing ourselves in. There are now AI platforms catering to those in need of eulogies, obituaries, and grief counseling.
A decade ago, I was a research assistant for a software developer writing an app that diagnosed complicated grief. I recall sitting with the clients who volunteered to test the app, and how confused, put-off, and angry they were by the tech-driven responses to their very real, traumatic losses. Today, there are several grief apps, and bereaved individuals are turning to AI on their own looking for support in their grief. What does this say about our ability to be with each other in tragedy?
We're outsourcing our emotions, as well as our mortality, to AI.
Thank you for sharing, Laura - these are really valuable thoughts. Amazing that she ghosted you after you called her out. I was at an event recently and someone who introduced herself as a "writer" told me she uses AI to ghostwrite all of the articles that she "writes" for executives... I agree that it's a question of how to be human. It's so tempting to opt-out, because being human is hard and we may disappoint (ourselves and others). It does not surprise me that eulogies and obituaries are also often written by AI. We must learn to embrace imperfection in these contexts. I would like to see a survey asking if people would be offended if they found out a serious text / wedding vow or speech / eulogy was written by AI. My hunch is people would prefer imperfection over tech-generated soullessness...
Such a good article! I have been thinking so much in how these static predictable interactions with AI bots is going to alter our true humanity. As you put it; there is much in the line. Moreover with the trend to use AI for therapy. What happens when we outsource our grief and our humanity to a bot? How is these altering how we create life together, how we relate? With other but more pressingly - with ourselves.
Well written. To what extent are these interactions "hybrid" as opposed to AI generated? And is that any better?
That’s a good question. I suspect many AI texts are hybrid to some extent - we must input something. Maybe there’s a rough outline input, some background perhaps, and then AI works its “magic.” It really brings up questions of what percentage is too much - over 50%? Or is it in the laziness / unwillingness to edit AI’s suggestions? When does it become offensive?
I use AI a lot in my creative work, but only as an assistant. I'll use AI images to illustrate and add visual stimulation. I guess it's hybrid to that extent. But that's been true since word processing was developed. The actual content is always mine. I would feel like I was cheating if I put out something that wasn't the result of my brainwork. I can't imagine sending someone an AI generated text and passing it off as a personal statement. That seems...I guess the sociological term is "icky." But then again, there's spell check and grammar check, word prediction algorythms. That's working its way into my content. All of this reminds me of the Borg (I'm dating myself). What is the line between interacting and interfacing? The norms are not clear yet. We're on our own. Great stuff for sociological analysis.