Here is a nightmare scenario for you. You are writing
a book about how AI reshapes reality. You start using it as a research
partner, confident that you are applying the right hygiene by not
letting it actually write a sentence of the book. You think you’ll be
careful, you will double check everything. And then your book comes out
and it appears that it includes more than a half dozen misattributed or
fake quotes. Steven Rosenbaum, the unfortunate writer, acknowledged that sometimes the output of AI was “staggeringly wrong”, but still, errors crept in.
There are others. A Commonwealth prize-winning short story became engulfed
in claims that it carried the hallmarks of AI. And every time I see a
story of a journalist caught out by fake AI quotes during research, I
cross myself – there but for the grace of God go I. But to make sure it
is not left up to grace alone, I never touch the thing. When AI results
pop up as the default in a search engine, I reject them, rebuke them, as
if they contained a dark sorcery that would through mere engagement
creep into my synapses and take control.
This
monastic, almost paranoid approach is not only because AI is a risky
and unreliable research tool. It is a voice, a tone, a frequency. AI
language haunts me in a million similar tinny chants from customer care
to social media posts to press releases. I worry even as I write this
column that it might sound like AI. That I have somehow through
relentless exposure assimilated its blandness and excess. Its short
declarative sentences. Its advertorial narration. Its informal mimicry
of personhood. Hi there! Hope all is well. I thought you might be
interested in a column about AI, an issue that is increasingly occupying
thought leaders and writers. Would you like to learn more?
What
are we losing in this fire? Writing is not just about rendering
thoughts through words in a certain style: analysis, literary fiction,
storytelling. It is about the particular alchemy of a single individual
drawing on their own unique profile to construct an idea. It is about
the way their brain works, the quirks they have picked up along the way,
their politics, their history, their relationships, the very way they
see the world. You can produce a thousand Dickenses and Rumis through
AI, but you can’t create a new iconic writer. You can only draw on the
chorus of styles that already exist. You can only derive, never create.
And
then there is the atrophy. The loss of the ability to struggle for a
word, to craft a verbal image. I could save precious minutes as a
deadline approaches and ask AI to cook me up a nice line, or I could
linger and conceptualise that resisting AI writing feels like trying not
to inhale an airborne virus. It might not be a great simile, but it’s
mine goddamit. And it helps me, in writing, to consolidate what I am
thinking. Whether it’s a political text or an email, leaning on AI for
everything from research to writing severs the connection between
feeling and expression. It drains the colour from everything and
suffocates one’s ability to channel and meet and be surprised by what is
knocking about in your head. When tech becomes about reducing labour in
every way, it ends up becoming an inhibitor of actual consciousness.
Entirely unsurprising research shows that leaning on LLMs may reduce brain engagement.
Even
more depressing is how well suited this cauterisation of the self is to
the political moment, one of a glut of content and bad information. AI
is rampant on social media, where accounts authoritatively post long
texts on everything from the wars in the Middle East to dramatic
personal experiences that didn’t happen in a sort of reality
fan-fiction. And in politics, where... READ MORE https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/01/ai-meaning-humanity-political-moment-trust-humans-over-machines
[AS
ALWAYS PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO
READ GOOD ARTICLES (or quotes or watch videos) IN FULL: HELP
SHAPE ALGORITHMS (and
conversations) THAT EMPOWER
DECENCY, DIGNITY, JUSTICE &
PEACE... and hopefully
Palestine]