SanityProject

Don’t let a bot do your writing   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged AI SanityProject software writing on by

A couple of days ago I was in a conversation where one of the people talked about letting an AI bot rewrite her business correspondence. She thought that her own style might seem abrupt and an appropriately directed chatbot could produce a less confrontational tone. Handing authorship to a bot is almost always a bad idea.

If it’s something purely utilitarian, like placing an order, then fine. Having software write up the request could save some time and make sure the numbers add up. But if it’s something the reader will care about, then it should come from you, not a machine. There’s still room for software to help you. A spelling and grammar checker can catch errors. I’ve used Grammarly and Language Tool. The important thing is to look at each suggestion and decide whether you want it. You can even have it check your tone, as long as you make the final decision yourself. Sometimes a “correction” will seriously change the meaning. The style might be wrong for your intended readers.

The point isn’t to flee from all forms of artificial intelligence. It’s to keep the content and voice yours. You may not be a pro-quality writer, but I’m sure nearly all of you reading this are competent. People would rather have something in your voice than something polished, grammatically correct, and fake-sounding.

If you let software be your full-time secretary, it will have a set of biases. Every creator of original text, human or machine, does. It will express views, perhaps subtly, by its choice of words and avoidance of topics or expressions. It will say things you wouldn’t.

Better to say things in your own way, improve your style as you go, and let your writing authentically represent you.

Thoughts on the four dark laws of engagement

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Internet SanityProject on by

Derek Thompson has listed four “dark laws of online engagement” that explain a lot of what’s wrong with social media, and perhaps a significant part of what’s wrong with America. He discusses their effect on people, especially young men, who are socially isolated. I’d like to look at the way they distort the information that we get on the Internet.
(more…)

Fact-free mob thinking

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged psychology religion SanityProject on by

On several occasions I’ve mentioned that I don’t support the Salvation Army because it holds that I’m going to Hell, along with all other non-Christians, while trying to look like a secular charity. This doesn’t seem to bother many people, though. Far more people blast it for being allegedly anti-LGBTQ. They pay no attention to the shift in the church’s tone; to them it’s now and forever hostile to gays.

While I don’t like the Salvation Army, I also don’t like unjust accusations. On its website, the page titled The LGBTQ Community and the Salvation Army, the US organization says it serves the LGBTQ community, it will provide shelter to transgender people, and it does not consider sexual orientation or gender identity in its hiring practices.
(more…)

The zero-sum fallacy 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged SanityProject on by

Authoritarian thinking of the right and left often relies on the assumption that “your gain is my loss.” The supporters of ICE think immigrants are taking jobs away from them. If enough people are deported, they think, there will be fewer people competing for the same jobs. The left’s version is that there’s a fixed amount of wealth to go around, and if the people who make the most are taxed heavily, that’s more money for everyone else with no downside.

These are both cases of zero-sum thinking. They assume that the amount of a resource, such as jobs or spending power, is a given and that the only question is who will get it. They think that taking resources away from others means more for them. In some cases, there’s a factual underpinning to that kind of thinking. The conservation laws of physics say we can’t create matter or energy out of nothing. The amount of air and water in the world is pretty much fixed. But most of the things we rely on are the products of human effort. Many didn’t exist till someone invented them.
(more…)

Sympathy and empathy

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language SanityProject usage vocabulary on by

This is a post about word usage, not about the murder of Charlie Kirk, but it started from seeing a lot of online rage about a statement of his. According to Snopes, he once said:

I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time.

It’s strange that of all the things he said, this should draw so much anger. If I were cynical, I’d say it’s because people saw an opportunity to pull the first sentence out of context and create a deceptive impression. In this case, cynicism is fully justified.

How much difference is there between sympathy and empathy, anyway?
(more…)