More than words How to think about writing in the age of AI

"Only humans can write," according to this impassioned takedown of large language models. Chicago Tribune columnist Warner (The Writer's Practice) argues that because such AI programs as ChatGPT merely predict what word is most likely to follow the previous one, they don't have the intention required by actual writing. Articulating one's thoughts forces one to develop the ideas one aims to express, Warner contends, warning that attempting to off-load such cognition has insidious consequences. For instance, he discusses how Vanderbilt University staff used ChatGPT to compose a statement of condolence after a 2023 mass shooting at Michigan State University, suggesting that in doing so, the staffers were able to address the tragedy without having to grapple with it. Warner offers smart commentary on the downsides of AI, particularly its ability to bypass critical thinking, and the suggestions on adjusting to the software's increasing popularity are thought-provoking if broad. For example, he laments that ChatGPT's ability to write generic five-paragraph essays that receive good grades demonstrates how asking students to write to the rubrics of standardized tests has turned writing into "a box-checking exercise" that even a machine can complete, asserting that instructors should instead devise more reflective assignments. This provides plenty of food for thought. Agent: Melissa Flashman, Janklow & Nesbit Assoc. (Feb.)

Minds over machines. Warner argues that artificial intelligence, including chatbots such as ChatGPT, should never replace human writing as a personal practice and a living art. In lively prose and with many engaging personal anecdotes, he deftly explains how ChatGPT mines data for examples to imitate. He calls attention to authors and artists who have sued generative AI companies, accusing them of "hoovering up" copyrighted text and images. The real point of Warner's polemic, however, is a view of writing as difficult, worthy of struggle, and central to shaping an individual's sense of self. AI systems that purport to write for us, he claims, offer only simulacra of writing. Stringing together words and phrases, he notes, is not writing. Writing is creative, much like mathematics. Pocket calculators made computation easier for students. Real mathematics--the study of complex ideas represented in numbers, with equations of beauty and power--is done by humans. We may no longer need to memorize log tables, just as we may no longer need to learn how to write a five-paragraph essay (the demise of which Warner has chronicled elsewhere). What we need to do, instead, is read books closely and emotionally. Warner avers, after surveying a range of AI-constructed texts: "I'd satisfied myself that in terms of writing, real writing that comes from a fully embodied process of thinking and feeling, powered by an intention to communicate human-to-human, GPT had nothing to offer." Some may be content with a B-minus paper, just as some may be content, he says, with a mediocre dish from a home-delivery meal service. Warner's resistance to AI could be akin to trying to hold back the tide with a broom. But anyone who loves to read and write, who teaches excellence and personal achievement, and who remains convinced that people are unique will find this book a welcome arrow in their humanist quiver. An impassioned plea for writing as a human practice and a social necessity in the age of AI. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.