Ah, those Valentine Day candy hearts, with those little messages that read like they anticipated text messages decades later. “Luv U.” “U R Mine.” I was surprised to learn that they originated during the Civil War. See “Hub Wafers: A Yankee Delight” at Emerging Civil War.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all over the media – stock market drops, worries about impact on jobs, already beginning to redefine industries. More than a year ago, a former colleague at work asked me if I’d embraced ChatGPT. I surprised her when I shook my head no. “Not for me,” I said. “I think I’d prefer to give up writing altogether.” AI popped all over my inbox this week. Writing coach Ann Kroeker asks whose voice is on your page. Writer Paul Kingsnorth sees it as the latest manifestation of what he calls “the machine,” and tells writers to oppose it. And Samuel D. James takes a look at that latest AI article that went viral.
I had lunch recently with a former work colleague who asked me what AI writing tools I was using. “I’m not,” I said. She was shocked. “But you were always the early adopter when it came to technology and online platforms.” And I was. But I’ve drawn a line for writing with AI. I can’t help running into it when I use Google; Apple wants to update my operating system for AI; and Microsoft is desperate for me to use CoPilot in my Word documents. But my attitude is thanks, but no thanks. Nadya Williams at Front Porch Republic has a similar resolution, but she’s discovering that it’s becoming harder to write because of the AI invasion.
When I look at the news these days, I see schizophrenia at work. The confirmation hearings of President Trump’s appointees are an example. You look at reports from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and the Washington Post, and they read like one long unmitigated disaster for the new Administration. Then you see online reports with extended videos of the hearings, and it looks like the nominees are more than holding their own. If the legacy media didn’t sound like such an organized chorus, I might believe what they’re reporting. But if I’ve learned anything about the news media in the past decade, it’s that you need to verify everything they report. Ben Domenech at The Spectator argues that the legacy media have yet to understand the shift in credibility, and the recent election may have been their death knell.
Shane Rosenthal at The Humble Skeptic reports on an artifact close to my home. A cuneiform cylinder in the collection of the St. Louis Art Museum dates to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. And it reads remarkably like the events recorded in the Biblical book of Daniel.
The new edition of An Unexpected Journal is now online, and its 15 essays focus on modernity. Writers include Annie Nardone, Seth Myers, Jasmin Biggs, and many others.
“Many journalists who hold progressive beliefs are no longer interested in reporting on or exploring stories that they think could injure the people who they share beliefs with.” So writes Clemente Lisi at Get Religion, a site devoted to exploring how the news media cover religion. This particular story is aboutan FBI memo that you never heard about, one that said so-called “radical” Catholics were dangerous and a threat to American public life.
I just read that there are already more than 300 titles listed on Amazon that were “written” by ChatGPT. Lincoln Michel at Counter Craft writes about a literary magazine that has had to close submissions because of a flood of AI-produced articles and stories. The future of writing is here, and we have no idea how to deal with it.
Speaking of the future already being here, we seem to be moving closer and closer to possible war over the Ukraine. Washington won’t acknowledge it, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s real. The Critic Magazine in the United Kingdom published an editorial this past week, saying that serious choices are going to have to be made soon.
