Please keep in mind that new technology like Generative AI (Gen AI) shouldn’t simply make your thinking or work easier, much less take the place of the uniquely singular abilities of human beings to grow cognitively, think creatively, or evaluate critically. If you use Gen AI to simply avoid work, you are doing it wrong. Instead, using Gen AI in the spirit of Douglas Engelbart’s “augmenting human intelligence” and Donna Haraway’s configuration of the cyborg point the way to beneficial heightening of human possibility instead of harmful erasure of the cognitive distinctions of humanity. If you use Gen AI, use it wisely and use it well. This post is the twelfth in this series.
In the science fiction novel Neuromancer, William Gibson explores the concept of cyborgs as beings who seamlessly integrate technology into their bodies and minds. Similarly, when students use generative AI tools to edit or paraphrase their writing, they risk integrating AI-generated changes that alter the meaning or tone of their work. This raises important questions about the role of AI in the writing process and the potential for losing one’s unique voice.
AI tools are designed to analyze and modify text based on patterns in their training data. While this can be helpful for improving grammar or clarity, it can also lead to unintended changes in meaning or tone. For example, a student might ask an AI tool to paraphrase a complex sentence, only to find that the tool has altered the nuance or emphasis of the original text. This can result in a piece of writing that no longer accurately reflects the student’s intentions or ideas.
This issue is reminiscent of the theme of identity in science fiction, where characters often grapple with the implications of merging human and machine. In works like Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, the line between human consciousness and technological enhancement is increasingly blurred. Similarly, when students rely on AI tools to edit their writing, they risk blurring the line between their own voice and that of the machine.
To address this problem, students should approach AI-generated edits with caution. They should carefully review any changes made by the AI, ensuring that the meaning and tone of their writing remain intact. Reading the writing of others and doing more writing of one’s own helps each student recognize and develop their own voice as a writer.
In conclusion, while generative AI tools can be valuable editing assistants, they also pose a risk of altering the meaning or tone of a student’s writing. The cyborg student must approach these tools with discernment, ensuring that their unique voice is preserved in the process. By doing so, they can harness the benefits of AI while maintaining the integrity and authenticity of their own voice and ideas in their writing.
