When I read the SEO versions they are a bit more punchy and precise. SEO is always about targetting, with precision. Granted, lots of people go overboard with keyword taggging everywhere but isn't one reason why those structures, including sub-headings and bullets, work is because the audience likes them?
When I consider my own writing, I'm not looking for SEO but when I ran a few articles through an analysis engine just now, I wouldn't say it hurt my writing. But back to your point, when everything sounds SEO optimized, where's your voice. To that end, even if my writing meanders, you'll at least know it's my voice!
Oh AI at its punchiest. So good and so bad simultaneously. As Mollick says... the unfortunate crux of the situation is... whether your readers know you are using AI. We as sophisticated Substackers like to think we aren't susceptible to this stuff. But we are. Ugh..
I understand this sentiment and respect it a great deal. I think this is precisely the sort of valuing we must teach, Nick. Only humans can recognize voice. The bot will suck dry even the staunchest human root of a draft.
I created and ran a couple blogs/websites way back in the day, focused on mobile technology. That introduced me to the black art of SEO. I was self-hosted on Wordpress and even used plugins that promised to SEO-ify all my posts automagically for me.
I understood the need for it if I wanted to get post views and all the stats that made it possible to monetize the sites, but I never enjoyed any of that side of things.
I still think of it as more of a necessary evil; one that would be lovely to do away with.
I am intrigued by the circle of writing for the machine and learning to write from the machine. Is there any other literature about this pattern of SEO writing? Would be awesome to include in a First Year Writing course.
There is a lot of writing about AI's training on biased data, but not so much on style and formatting. I think I am breaking a bit of new ground here. Yes, the machine loop is intriguing in the abstract, but uglier in the concrete. But there is hope. We can still guide students into discernment and expertisement. Critical AI literacy is the key.
Wow!! Well said, Lance. I’m tempted to use Sapir-Wharf hypothesis as a metaphor. The bend of language like a bowstring remarks the arc of the target. AI can’t write. It sucks. But it has its fiberglass bow, its treflon tipped arrows, Cupid in a brothel. Just a thought indeed:)
Nice one, Nick. This helpfully points to a context that are not LLM-specific, yet has increasingly shaped the language we encounter.
I'm pulling together a few brief essays for my students this fall on the social contexts of writing to set up some in-class activities and discussions about our experiments with LLMs. I plan to include this and Marc Watkins recent piece on first drafts.
When I read the SEO versions they are a bit more punchy and precise. SEO is always about targetting, with precision. Granted, lots of people go overboard with keyword taggging everywhere but isn't one reason why those structures, including sub-headings and bullets, work is because the audience likes them?
When I consider my own writing, I'm not looking for SEO but when I ran a few articles through an analysis engine just now, I wouldn't say it hurt my writing. But back to your point, when everything sounds SEO optimized, where's your voice. To that end, even if my writing meanders, you'll at least know it's my voice!
Oh AI at its punchiest. So good and so bad simultaneously. As Mollick says... the unfortunate crux of the situation is... whether your readers know you are using AI. We as sophisticated Substackers like to think we aren't susceptible to this stuff. But we are. Ugh..
And the AI detectors flag human content as much as AI content so there's no way to know. Though SEO hackers have sounded like AI for 10 years now.
I understand this sentiment and respect it a great deal. I think this is precisely the sort of valuing we must teach, Nick. Only humans can recognize voice. The bot will suck dry even the staunchest human root of a draft.
The bend of language is toward standardization and homogenization, whether that’s from SEO or grammar hawks.
The writer bends against this, whether they are using AI or not.
Our agency or “or style” exists within the tension of these two poles.
Just a thought …
Very nice Lance.
Great post Nick.
I created and ran a couple blogs/websites way back in the day, focused on mobile technology. That introduced me to the black art of SEO. I was self-hosted on Wordpress and even used plugins that promised to SEO-ify all my posts automagically for me.
I understood the need for it if I wanted to get post views and all the stats that made it possible to monetize the sites, but I never enjoyed any of that side of things.
I still think of it as more of a necessary evil; one that would be lovely to do away with.
This is a fantasic point.
I am intrigued by the circle of writing for the machine and learning to write from the machine. Is there any other literature about this pattern of SEO writing? Would be awesome to include in a First Year Writing course.
There is a lot of writing about AI's training on biased data, but not so much on style and formatting. I think I am breaking a bit of new ground here. Yes, the machine loop is intriguing in the abstract, but uglier in the concrete. But there is hope. We can still guide students into discernment and expertisement. Critical AI literacy is the key.
Wow!! Well said, Lance. I’m tempted to use Sapir-Wharf hypothesis as a metaphor. The bend of language like a bowstring remarks the arc of the target. AI can’t write. It sucks. But it has its fiberglass bow, its treflon tipped arrows, Cupid in a brothel. Just a thought indeed:)
Nice one, Nick. This helpfully points to a context that are not LLM-specific, yet has increasingly shaped the language we encounter.
I'm pulling together a few brief essays for my students this fall on the social contexts of writing to set up some in-class activities and discussions about our experiments with LLMs. I plan to include this and Marc Watkins recent piece on first drafts.