As a whole, this piece (Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies) was unconvincing. I found it stuffy, ivory towerish, and yet…the longer I reflect on it, the more little pieces of it grow on me.

Critical Thinking

One example includes this quote from Vee, as cited:

“Large language models such as ChatGPT will produce good writing. They will not produce challenging, thoughtful, innovative humans, such as good writing instruction helps to nurture now”

This resonates since the more work the AI does for you, the less you do…and the dumber you may get. I wouldn’t want my brain to slip into disuse. But then, isn’t that the complaint when we outsource our thinking to others?

Impact on…

The impact of people’s technologies on the world is concerning. It is doubtful countries like America will care given their political proclivities and turning a blind eye to climate change catastrophes.

These impacts are not just plausible; they are documented, tangible, and real.

The problem is, humans are tool users. Will they give up tools that fascinate and empower them while at the same time threaten their very existence? I suspect the answer is a resounding “No!” In that way, our fascination will consume us, in spite of our metacognitive awareness.

Waiting?

As much as I admire the authors’ efforts, their erudite efforts to halt GenAI in writing studies, they may be doomed to failure.

Instead of centering a technology that is misaligned with so many of our disciplinary values, we can choose to opt out of active use of GenAI technologies until these products are better aligned with our values

The failure to recognize that avarice lies at the heart of humanity, superseding the nobler intentions the authors appeal to is concerning. Nothing is offered to offset human avarice except a weak, futile appeal.

Avarice is the word that describes our headlong dive into GenAI usage. Avarice describes behavior such as:

  • Corporate or institutional greed
  • Excessive materialism
  • Self-serving behavior at others’ expense

Rapacity, cupidity are other words that define humanity’s embrace of technologies that destroy our ecosystem while giving us illusory godlike powers.

Off to pop some popcorn. I am curious to see how this plays out in these areas. Given the politics of the masses, which I did not go along with, I am curious to see how humans collectively destroy themselves. I identify with the minority who oppose the rapine, felonious nature of GenAI companies engaged in profiting as they consume precious resources all have need of.

Parting Thoughts

It seems the way forward always lies between two extremes. On the one side, a precipitous cliff. On the other, a million horrors including rapacious creatures eager to consume one in blind hunger without hope of satisfaction.

Threading the needle, the narrow path, is suggested by ETHICAL analysis (see previous blog entries):

The most ethical path forward appears to be a thoughtful, measured approach that neither wholly embraces nor completely rejects GenAI, but rather focuses on maintaining core writing education values while preparing students for a changing technological landscape.

The how of that is best figured out immediately rather than engaging in delay. This piece outlines the pre-conversation that must happen, one of the documents that provides the background for a collective human version of retrieval augmented generation.

Alas, I am not convinced GenAI wouldn’t do the job faster than humans. But faster, better, isn’t the point of efforts like this, is it?

It is to rein in the human avarice that infects our every effort, an insatiable craving that puts us, not the path of reason…but in the pack of ravenous creatures never satisfied with enough.