I was thinking about AI before I read this post and it seemed to me that tools like ChatGPT were much more useful for revision than for anything else, especially for people who are unconfident in their writing skills. In fact, it manages the kinds of values programs such as the Engineering Communication Program have advocated for years: concision, syntactical efficiency, quick readability. If anything, it seemed to me to be the logical consequence of everything such programs were trying to teach. Does it make these programs redundant now? Maybe. I mean, you still have to be very careful with the tool to make sure that as it revises, it does not change the emphasis you intended in the first place (I noticed when a friend showed me the revision it had done to what he wrote, that the slight changes it made created a quite different message than the one I discerned in his messy original). Therein lies the kind of shift you implied in your post - the messy "original." The human part of communication can never be replaced by AI, but it has to be remembered that in some communication, especially such engineering documents as "instructions for use" we hardly want the "messy human," but rather the kind of absolute clarity that prevents mistakes. So, the tool will have its very useful place, but will also show us the importance of reinforcing humanness, humanity in certain situations where the robotic conformity to standard is not what is required.
Love the comic strip.
Well said
However, I firmly believe that we desperately need strict guide rails for development and we need it urgently.
Thanks, Clive! And I 100% agree
I was thinking about AI before I read this post and it seemed to me that tools like ChatGPT were much more useful for revision than for anything else, especially for people who are unconfident in their writing skills. In fact, it manages the kinds of values programs such as the Engineering Communication Program have advocated for years: concision, syntactical efficiency, quick readability. If anything, it seemed to me to be the logical consequence of everything such programs were trying to teach. Does it make these programs redundant now? Maybe. I mean, you still have to be very careful with the tool to make sure that as it revises, it does not change the emphasis you intended in the first place (I noticed when a friend showed me the revision it had done to what he wrote, that the slight changes it made created a quite different message than the one I discerned in his messy original). Therein lies the kind of shift you implied in your post - the messy "original." The human part of communication can never be replaced by AI, but it has to be remembered that in some communication, especially such engineering documents as "instructions for use" we hardly want the "messy human," but rather the kind of absolute clarity that prevents mistakes. So, the tool will have its very useful place, but will also show us the importance of reinforcing humanness, humanity in certain situations where the robotic conformity to standard is not what is required.
Very well said, Professor Weiss!
Absolutely loved this!
Thanks man! Appreciate it
Your comic strip is fantastic, Fawzi! A great way to invite us to think, and inspiring at the same time.
Thanks, Malena! I'm glad you enjoyed it :-)
You are absolutely right: let's remain positive. All great inventions were misused, yet they helped us to grow. Loved your strip.
Thanks, Iva! Cautious optimism is always the way to go