Written by Ken Walker

As 2024 was drawing to a close and my income poised to decline slightly over 2023—amid fears that Artificial Intelligence is about to eat freelancers’ lunch—I needed a good laugh.

I got one, thanks to a story in Time magazine about errors in OpenAI’s new, advanced model with “complex reasoning.”

In an accompanying video, a user uploaded a picture of a wooden birdhouse and asked for advice on building one. The machine soon spit out comprehensive instructions.

However, writer Billy Perrigo noted that they were almost useless. Things like:

• AI measured the amount of paint, glue, and sealant required in inches.
• The only dimensions were for the front panel of the birdhouse.
• Another part of the instructions read that “the exact dimensions are as follows”—and nothing followed.

“It’s just the latest example of an AI product demo doing the opposite of its intended purpose,” Perrigo wrote.

Voting for Humans

Now, I realize that AI is here to stay. One assumes with continued refining, embarrassing errors will decline. And yet, in this latest example pitting humans against machines, I can’t help casting my vote for humans.

For one, AI is developing by allegedly stealing the work of real-life authors. That was the claim in a class action lawsuit filed last August against Anthropic. The suit accused the company of stealing work by authors like Stephen King and Michael Pollan to compile its ebook library.

In addition, no matter how powerful the computers, microprocessors, and other tools driving AI, machines still face God’s most awesome creation: human beings.

Soon after the Time story, another freelancer posted a note with a link to “The Editor’s Brain” by copyeditor and proofreader Katherine Kirk. While she addressed fiction editors, her comments apply to all of us who write and/or edit.

Kirk noted that editors go through a series of steps checking grammar and punctuation, consulting style guides, and conferring with publishers. All connected to a life of experience communicating with humans and evaluating content, she said.

While the AI folks think a machine can do this, Kirk contrasted the one they have made with only having ten switches to “our infinity.”

“They don’t even come close to the one in the editor brain,” she wrote. “Maybe one day they’ll get there, but the thing is, since language is constantly evolving and the art of writing is forever innovating, I think AI is going to be playing catch-up for a very long time.”

AI’s Foibles

Two weeks ago I came up against another example of the need for human fine-tuning of creative material.

The head of a literary services agency emailed me to ask about my interest in helping an author craft her message into a salable book. She used AI for the first draft, only to realize it’s not good enough to be published. She needs help with rewriting and adding color to the manuscript.

Which goes to show that some creations need the touch of our Creator.

---