The Struggle to Adapt

In a recent article written by Lance Cummings, the topic of AI rhetoric has been brought to the forefront our minds: that being a Digital Writing class. Machine rhetoric, as he coined it, is the “study of the available means of machine persuasion.” In other words, how can writers tailor AI systems to benefit their work?

No Running Away

With the ever looming progression of generative AI, there is no future where we can just ignore it. That leaves us with the choice of how to adapt to it. Cummings presents an optimistic scenario in which we utilize it ethically. Swinging from the start, Cummings says, “This shift means we’re no longer just authors; we’re becoming co-authors with machines.” Which will undoubtedly be a contentious point of discussion. I myself find the “co-authors” line strange. Writing is rarely ever a single person’s creation. I know people don’t generally consider editors as “co-authors,” but their careers demonstrate how writing is collaborative. Also, there are already people who co-write books. Cummings does seem to try to alleviate some doubts, as he briefly mentions AI not taking our jobs. However, I fear this is a statement that cannot be made faithfully. Cummings has to know that there will/are be businesses that utilize AI to cut the costs of hiring someone.

There has been a lot of discourse with AI being similar to other technological advancements. That it will be organically digested into our lifestyles. Machine rhetoric further delves into this, as Cummings presents how this form of rhetoric is not so dissimilar to Aristotle’s definition. While this can go into a whole other discussion, the issue I have with Cummings article is how this tool is theoretically utilized. I can’t help but see the repercussions of this adaptation. Looking at Cummings’ activity on Substack, he is posting AI generated art. If someone can so casually use AI for no reason, what’s stopping them from using it for everything. It’s the normalization and awe at the “creation” of generative AI that really bugs me.

The Future

Cummings introduces ideas from Bill Hart Davidson, a rhetoric scholar. Returning to how we will co-author with Machines, Davidson proposes “a future where most first drafts would be generated by AI.” He follows that up with how human revision and curation will remain crucial to the writing process. This AI assistant would draw up the initial draft based on the users own works and “relevant external texts.” Is there merit to this possible scenario? Possibly. However, it stands on shaky grounds. Questions will arise of how faithful writers will stay to this original vision. People already generate paintings in certain people’s styles. What will stop someone from feeding an AI system Steven King novels to try to replicate his style? Even if writers only use their own works, would it really be that beneficial? They are essentially saying that these systems will be brainstorming machines, but what’s the point? It just seems like a way to cut down on the ‘hassle’ of writing something original.

Another scenario Cummings would present generative AI in positive light is in a position many would deem repetitive, tech writers. Many will flag the use of AI in an entire novel as unethical. What about a tech writer though? Cummings presents a scenario in which a tech writer trains “An AI assistant that’s specifically tailored to write in your company’s voice and with deep knowledge of your products.” I find this disagreeable. Cummings glosses over how AI will not take anyones job, but this seems like a ripe way to do so. In this scenario, a company would hire a tech writer to train a machine to do their job for them. Greed would say a company would just train an AI system themselves for free.

Conclusion

While it is necessary to adapt to this oncoming wave of generative AI, Cummings presents too many unrealistic possibilities. He does identify himself as an “AI content specialist,” so it’s clear that he is all in for this future. I just wonder about those of us who never want to use AI like this.