For quite a while now, someone has been living inside my computer, writing emails for me.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t recall signing up for this artificial intelligence feature, which is like having a word valet. It\u2019s in my phone, too, which offers three serviceable but impersonal responses I can fire off to someone who has just sent me an email pitching a story or asking if I want to meet for coffee.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019d like to do coffee,\u201d was one of the suggested responses to a recent email. \u201cLet me circle back soon about timing.\u201d<\/p>\n
One argument for these features is that they can save time and free me up for more important tasks. But it takes longer for me to read the three fabricated email options than it would take to write my own response.<\/p>\n
I find this really irritating for about 150 reasons, one of which is that in an ever-automated world, it\u2019s another nail in the coffin of human interaction. And yes, there are at least 150 reasons. I know because I asked AI and it spit them out in approximately three seconds. No. 148: \u201cIt sounds like it\u2019s written by a committee.\u201d<\/p>\n
A fair share of nasty feedback lands in my mailbox, so I wondered if the auto-response tool could come in handy. But the robot isn\u2019t salty enough to be of service. \u201cThanks for reading\u201d was the suggested reply to someone who called me a hopeless loon and another guy who wondered why anybody would read my \u201cdumb column.\u201d<\/p>\n
On second thought, maybe the unruffled, dismissive response is the way to go. But the bigger concern is what happens to human intelligence as artificial intelligence does more of our writing, researching, communicating and thinking.<\/p>\n
If a middle school, high school or college student can easily use a computer tool to fire off a book report or an essay, what\u2019s the impact on vocabulary, grammar, reading, critical thinking, originality, intellectual curiosity?<\/p>\n
On learning?<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s no nose like an English teacher\u2019s nose,\u201d said Mike Finn, a recently retired L.A. Unified instructor who said teachers can tell when a student\u2019s work is original or is not and try to steer them clear of shortcuts and plagiarism.<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s easier than ever for a student to get lazy. In a New Yorker article<\/a> last year by a college professor, students characterized AI-enabled cheating as a widespread and resourceful way to avoid wasting time on material that didn\u2019t interest them. \u201cI\u2019m trying to do the least work possible,\u201d said one student.<\/p>\n My son, a college librarian, has seen that phenomenon as well as a general erosion of research skills and decision-making aptitude among some students.<\/p>\n \u201cThey can\u2019t choose a book from among thousands of books for a research project and don\u2019t even want to because they think they can get the information more easily from a computer,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Jenn Wolfe, a Cal State Northridge professor of secondary education, said the use of AI is \u201ca very heated topic right now,\u201d and at high schools and middle schools, some teachers \u201care going back to paper and pen, from what I see and hear.\u201d <\/p>\n I met Wolfe in 2013<\/a>, when she was an L.A. Unified high school teacher getting used to the introduction of iPads in classrooms.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not a teacher and it\u2019s not a student, either,\u201d she wisely said of the iPad at the time. \u201cIt\u2019s a tool.\u201d<\/p>\n Professor Sarah W. Beck, chair of NYU\u2019s department of teaching and learning, echoed that idea of adapting to evolving technology.<\/p>\n \u201cI think AI denial or AI refusal is not a useful stance because it\u2019s here to stay,\u201d said Beck, so the key is to understand the benefits and reduce the risks.<\/p>\n She told me she had just come from an education class in which future teachers \u201cfor the most part are quite skeptical of AI. They\u2019re not AI refusers, but they\u2019re very attuned to its limitations and really value the human dialogue around writing.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s no denying that AI can be helpful as a research tool, to explore themes and to help writers frame their thoughts. It\u2019s also useful in ways not limited to writing. It helped me replace a toilet tank flush valve a couple of weeks ago, for instance. And I just had a tooth extracted and wondered about the advantages and disadvantages of getting an implant. AI fed me oodles of information on the pros and cons.<\/p>\n For writing, Beck said, it can organize your notes or perform \u201cformulaic writing\u201d tasks.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to learn how to use these tools in a way that gives us more time to devote to the parts of writing that really matter,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n We need to be careful, too.<\/p>\n When we\u2019re fire-hosed instructions, analysis, pre-fab emails, ready-made manuscripts and unsolicited offers of help, where does all of that come from? Who input the information? Do the creators have an agenda? Are students taught to be discerning about what information is credible?<\/p>\n A Cornell University study released<\/a> this month suggests that AI writing assistants can not only influence how we write, but how we think.<\/p>\n