Why Should I Embrace AI?

The development of technology has changed the way we communicate. It has changed what we value within our communication as well. 

Rhetoric is, to briefly explain, the delivery of a message. Historically, it has been undervalued since Aristotle (Ridolfo). We see in our phrases today, “He’s just using rhetoric.” We assume that someone extremely interested in the art of rhetoric is just interested in persuasion. In reality, much of everything we do involves rhetoric. Arguing over a design, spotting techniques on social media, or even a website layout. 

As rhetoric has become more valuable, the context around it has changed. To study rhetoric means to study context, understand the audience, and embrace empathy. Notably, the writer has further developed rhetoric as technology develops. We made computers for math and realized we could do more, such as video games or communicate. Facebook was started as a way for students in college to keep up and communicate. Much of technology comes into existence as a way to solve a problem, and then we as people take the technology, develop terminology, and further explore what avenues are important. Remember, the engineering design process starts with defining a problem.

My issue with generative A.I., which I will be referring to as just A.I., is what purpose does it serve? (Keep this in mind as we discuss the article)

Lance Cummings, in his article Introduction to Machine Rhetorics, writes on machine rhetorics. Here he redefines rhetorics to serve the purpose of how we interact with machines. He emphasizes the role of persuasion in how we interact with machines, how we shape them, the ways we use them, and our language with them. He emphasizes their advancements, how they have “behan incorporating context-aware methods” (Cummings) to provide a “customized response.” This is all to say that Cummings’ point is that we should establish “machine rhetoric” to better interact with generative A.I. models a rhetoric that, “allows humans to shape AI technologies with contextual knowledge and understanding […]” (Cummings). Yet, I ask why should I incorporate A.I. into my writing.

Let’s take a section from his article that I raise major issues with:

As early as 2018, Bill Hart-Davidson, a scholar in rhetoric, predicted a significant shift in writing processes. He envisioned a future where most first drafts would be generated by AI, with humans primarily engaging in revision and refinement.

The first issue with the current generative A.I. models, I do not trust them. If I am writing a paper, I do not have faith in its ability to ethically find and cite sources. If I am writing a fiction novel, I have found they more often than not spit out garbage that is either preachy or plain nonsense. The second issue is that I do not understand why I would want them to write first drafts. Much of the actual writing, the choices one makes, the research, and the learning process occur during this stage. I have been writing a novel, how I want it to be perceived, what messages I want to say, and how the characters should be read, that all occurs in the first stage. A.I. will strip my work of these choices. So once again I ask, what does A.I. solve? 

I open the floor now, what does A.I. solve or appear to solve?