Ha, I have also been working on a review of John Warner's More than words. :) As you say, more nuance and open-minded would be helpful. But I see Warner as taking on a certain niche position on the subject of writing and writing education in an age of AI. His purist approach makes a lot of sense of those in and wanting to go into the "Writing" profession. If these writers can sufficiently develop their writing chops and "voice", they will become differentiated from the "AI slop" that is flooding the internet.
But I do find it elitist. For many students and (non-?)writers, these chops and voice will forever be beyond reach. Should they be denied the skill and knowledge enhancements that genAI affords? I do feel that for this majority of (non-)writers, a "controlled AI-dependence" of the type I mentioned in my contribution to your Substack a few weeks ago, is a boon and opens up possibilities that they would never have. It is a functional democratization of language ability and "intelligence".
And for (real) writers, there is no reason why genAI cannot assist in brainstorming and in other stages of the writing process.
The question, and one that you, me, and most of your readers are grappling with, is how and when to introduce AI in the writing/learning workflow.
I recently wrote a Review of Reid Hoffman's Superagency, an impassioned apologetic for genAI use, which lies at the other extreme from Warner's impassioned polemic against genAI use. As usual, the maximal truth for the maximum number of people will lie somewhere in between.
Nick, good take on the pros and cons of Warner’s new book - the writerly part of me agrees with what he’s saying, but I do think he’s missing the many ways that AI tools can be used to explore thinking. This is where educators need to get specific and to underscore a core set of values for using AI. I just registered for your March 12 session, which I look forward to 😉
Yes, there is much to admire about Warner's book. He also pulled on my writerly heart strings. I like your idea about a core set of values. I sense it will take a while before teachers are ready to do that work. Top-down administrative decisions about AI usage on campus are rekindling the fires of AI resistance more broadly, making works like Warner's more appealing. I was just hoping that the big publishers would also be featuring other voices from the community at this point to provide more balance. So far, we have Mollick and Khan on one side, and Warner on the other side. I guess the in-between position is not as marketable.
Yes, the educational nuances are never as marketable, but I’m working on something now that is designed to be more specific and practical, and some presses are interested - we’ll see
If you ever want to write a post to update my readership about your research, I would be very excited to publish it. I am very interested in your work.
There is a ton of resistence to AI. On the other hand there's also a ton of illconsidered acceptance. I love to write because it allows me to form, unform, and reform ideas. I get smarter writing. However, I also like to use AI in research and in helping provide counter arguments against my own biases. I don't see an inherent conflict except with the extremes
This is great, Nigel. Good feedback. This piece was more a prompt to see what other people were thinking about this book. I wonder how much control we ultimately have about the timing of AI’s introduction and full insertion into students’ writing workflows. I watch my students and the democratization is already well underway. Arguably in the States it has been underway for a long time, really since writing pedagogy began to frame composition as an information delivery system (the Common Core). We still can create intentional spaces where writing is unassisted but can only maintain that purity if students either have a sufficient buyin or if we insist that students only use pen and paper. Warner is trying to muster that buyin with his book, but i don’t think many students are biting. A new argument is needed, one not so linked to Romantic notions of the writerly life.
Ha, I have also been working on a review of John Warner's More than words. :) As you say, more nuance and open-minded would be helpful. But I see Warner as taking on a certain niche position on the subject of writing and writing education in an age of AI. His purist approach makes a lot of sense of those in and wanting to go into the "Writing" profession. If these writers can sufficiently develop their writing chops and "voice", they will become differentiated from the "AI slop" that is flooding the internet.
But I do find it elitist. For many students and (non-?)writers, these chops and voice will forever be beyond reach. Should they be denied the skill and knowledge enhancements that genAI affords? I do feel that for this majority of (non-)writers, a "controlled AI-dependence" of the type I mentioned in my contribution to your Substack a few weeks ago, is a boon and opens up possibilities that they would never have. It is a functional democratization of language ability and "intelligence".
And for (real) writers, there is no reason why genAI cannot assist in brainstorming and in other stages of the writing process.
The question, and one that you, me, and most of your readers are grappling with, is how and when to introduce AI in the writing/learning workflow.
I recently wrote a Review of Reid Hoffman's Superagency, an impassioned apologetic for genAI use, which lies at the other extreme from Warner's impassioned polemic against genAI use. As usual, the maximal truth for the maximum number of people will lie somewhere in between.
Nick, good take on the pros and cons of Warner’s new book - the writerly part of me agrees with what he’s saying, but I do think he’s missing the many ways that AI tools can be used to explore thinking. This is where educators need to get specific and to underscore a core set of values for using AI. I just registered for your March 12 session, which I look forward to 😉
Yes, there is much to admire about Warner's book. He also pulled on my writerly heart strings. I like your idea about a core set of values. I sense it will take a while before teachers are ready to do that work. Top-down administrative decisions about AI usage on campus are rekindling the fires of AI resistance more broadly, making works like Warner's more appealing. I was just hoping that the big publishers would also be featuring other voices from the community at this point to provide more balance. So far, we have Mollick and Khan on one side, and Warner on the other side. I guess the in-between position is not as marketable.
Yes, the educational nuances are never as marketable, but I’m working on something now that is designed to be more specific and practical, and some presses are interested - we’ll see
If you ever want to write a post to update my readership about your research, I would be very excited to publish it. I am very interested in your work.
There is a ton of resistence to AI. On the other hand there's also a ton of illconsidered acceptance. I love to write because it allows me to form, unform, and reform ideas. I get smarter writing. However, I also like to use AI in research and in helping provide counter arguments against my own biases. I don't see an inherent conflict except with the extremes
This is great, Nigel. Good feedback. This piece was more a prompt to see what other people were thinking about this book. I wonder how much control we ultimately have about the timing of AI’s introduction and full insertion into students’ writing workflows. I watch my students and the democratization is already well underway. Arguably in the States it has been underway for a long time, really since writing pedagogy began to frame composition as an information delivery system (the Common Core). We still can create intentional spaces where writing is unassisted but can only maintain that purity if students either have a sufficient buyin or if we insist that students only use pen and paper. Warner is trying to muster that buyin with his book, but i don’t think many students are biting. A new argument is needed, one not so linked to Romantic notions of the writerly life.