970x125
Recently, The Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most prestigious journals in medicine, published an opinion piece on the use of AI in scientific writing. The author, John Steiner, discussed the perils involved.
He talks about how tempting it is for scientists to use AI when they write, given that many of them do not enjoy or feel competent at writing. He mentions that they have been trained in science, not in the humanities, and many have received no formal training in writing….since high school.
The problem is that scientists become successful partially by virtue of the number of papers they get published. Overwhelmed as they are by their other responsibilities – teaching, research, grant writing, etc. – AI becomes particularly attractive as a way to shortcut the writing process.
But, Steiner says, it is amid these pressures that an important matter is forgotten: scientific writing is a creative act.
And here is where we get to my point in writing this post: this is not the case only with scientific writing. Just about any kind of writing is a creative act – and this is as true in fifth grade or seventh grade as it is at the postgraduate level. If children and teens farm out their writing to AI, they too miss out on the creative act of writing. They miss the opportunity to choose words and, indeed, ideas, carefully and consciously. They miss out on the chance to figure out how to best express their own thoughts.
Steiner quotes the writer, Ted Chang, who pithily said, “The task that generative AI has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and
of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning.”
The creative act of writing involves struggle. It isn’t easy to express one’s ideas clearly, to choose the words that convey our ideas best, and to choose the sound that is most pleasing. But the question is, what happens to people – scientists or kids – if they do not engage in this sort of mental exercise? What happens to their creativity? And what happens to their feelings about themselves when they submit an article or hand in homework on which they didn’t really work very hard because they used AI to do their writing? What happens to the development of their ability to withstand the frustration inherent in doing intellectual work?
In the end, Steiner comes to this conclusion: “We should not protect young researchers from that struggle, and they should not protect themselves by relying too heavily on AI tools.” And I would say the same of kids. Let’s do all we can to discourage AI use in writing – at home and at school. Yes, AI is good for correcting grammar and spelling mistakes, for finding citations, and even for summarizing the content of articles. But beyond that? Let’s try to help kids (and scientists) to do the writing on their own.
