Today we’re starting with a little bit of an experiment. I wanted to see what happens when you automate a podcast.*
Greetings, esteemed listeners. Today, let us embark on a journey through the captivating realm of rhetoric. I am your guide, M. Elizabeth Thorpe, and I bid you welcome to a discourse on the art of persuasion, the power of language, and the elegance of rhetoric.
Rhetoric, my dear friends, is not merely the arrangement of words but the orchestration of ideas. It is the artful dance of ethos, pathos, and logos, weaving together a tapestry of conviction, emotion, and reason. In the hands of a skilled rhetorician, words transcend their mundane existence and ascend to the realm of persuasion, where they hold sway over hearts and minds alike.
Consider for a moment the great orators of history — from the stirring speeches of Cicero to the impassioned pleas of Martin Luther King Jr. Their words were not mere utterances; they were instruments of change, catalysts for revolution and evolution. They understood the alchemy of rhetoric, the delicate balance between reason and emotion, between logic and passion.
But let us not confine our exploration to the grand stages of history. Rhetoric is not solely the domain of statesmen and scholars; it is a tool accessible to all who seek to communicate, to influence, to inspire. Whether you are a politician rallying your constituents, a teacher imparting wisdom to eager minds, or simply a friend offering counsel to a troubled soul, rhetoric is your ally, your accomplice in the pursuit of understanding and persuasion.
Yet, rhetoric is not without its pitfalls. In the wrong hands, it can be a weapon of deceit, a veil to obscure truth rather than reveal it. It is incumbent upon us, as stewards of language, to wield rhetoric with integrity and honesty, to use its powers for the betterment of humanity rather than its detriment.
And so, my fellow travelers in the realm of rhetoric, let us embrace this art with humility and reverence. Let us study its nuances, refine our techniques, and harness its potential for good. For in the crucible of rhetoric lies the power to shape the world, to forge connections, to build bridges across the chasms that divide us.
As we conclude our journey, let us remember the words of Aristotle: “Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” May we wield this art with wisdom and compassion, that we may guide, enlighten, and uplift those whose hearts and minds we seek to touch.
Until we meet again, may your words be as potent as they are beautiful. Farewell, dear listeners, and may the art of rhetoric illuminate your path always.
I asked ChatGPT to write a speech or podcast about rhetoric in the style of M. Elizabeth Thorpe.
What we have learned here, is that AI is not great at nailing down a specific point, and it has no idea how I talk.
I thought it would be a fun exercise to start out that way, to show you what the fuss is about, and also give you a bit of insight into what teachers at all levels are dealing with. If somebody turned that in to you or read that out loud, what would you think? Hopefully you would think, whoah, this is not right! But, if you didn’t know me, my work, or my style there would be no way for you to assess whether it was original and just a bad paper, or AI and it’s doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
We’ve talked previously about AI and automation. And the laments from the internet (tech bros aside) indicate that we are going about it all wrong. We want vacuuming and dusting automated. Not art.
I tell my students if they use AI they are running a great risk – because what AI produces tends to be what a dumb person thinks smart people sound like. There are a lot of pretty words, but they don’t say anything. I might not fail you for using AI, because maybe I can’t tell for certain. But I will fail you if your paper is just a bunch of pretty generalities.
This point that we are at is critical. We are deciding how technology is going to intersect with human production. We are doing that right now. This is the time. In my estimation the only time we have seen this kind of upheaval to the flow of production was the Industrial Revolution.
And capitalism is a beast.
My economics teacher told me that capitalism worships at the altar of efficiency. Capitalism is the rush to make the most profit with the lowest overhead. That means things have to be efficient.
AI is definitely efficient. It can spit out dozens of novels in a matter of minutes. There is not much more efficient than AI.
But what I think people are forgetting, is that not everything is economics. I know we’re raised to think that way, here in glorious late-stage capitalism, but efficiency doesn’t always necessarily mean “good.” For example, if AI spits out a dozen novels in a matter of minutes, the question is not “how many novels did it write?” But “Are they any good?”
And in general, they are not. If you’re not a huge literary person you might not notice. But when novels are written in nothing but tropes, stereotypes, and generalities, then that’s just not a good novel. It might get you on BookTok, but AI can’t figure out individualization. Characterization. An AI novel is efficient – but it has no humanity.
But as long as people see efficiency as the greatest good, then all human production is in danger. Because the machines can do things much faster and with a much better completion rate than we can. And that has been one of the real selling points of AI. But as I say, the question is, can it do them well?
There are things that people can’t do as well as AI, to be sure. AI is great for programming and can spit out an email or an outline almost instantaneously. But at some point, we all have to ask – is more and faster really better?
Capitalism is wound up in our obsession with AI. We want to produce more and more and better and better. But we are behaving as capitalists when we do that, not as students, artists, or teachers.
And we have to ask ourselves if there is danger here, as well. If the goal is to be as efficient as possible, and AI and capitalism seem to share that goal, then maybe we need to be worried. Because, honestly, there is little more inefficient than people.
Truly, if AI decides we are a stumbling block, what will we do? I don’t mean to get all Skynet on you, but the idea really weirds me out!
My students love AI because it can produce work for them in an instant. So I have added an AI assignment to my classes to help them think about it. They have to produce an AI paper, kind of like what I started this episode with, based on a particular prompt, and then critique that essay. This is SO HARD for some of them. I tell them over and over again, if AI does the paper wrong, and you don’t mention that in your critique, you will fail, because that’s kind of the point. I’d say roughly ¾ of them turn in papers telling me how great AI is without ever thinking through the content, because almost without fail, AI has no idea how to do the kinds of papers we are writing. And I need my students to see they are smarter than the machine and that their work is better than the automated kind. It’s like pulling teeth to get there. They all believe that what the machines tell them is sacrosanct – and I’m sure that’s been made worse by COVID when we were all dependent on the machines for EVERYTHING.
So, just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to write me another paper. This time I asked for an essay on the dangers of capitalism and AI together.
I’m not going to lie, the essay surprised me. It would be fine for something like a reader-response or a journal entry. If you’re just looking for any response to a prompt, then AI is actually pretty good. What I think throws a lot of people for a loop is that a generic response isn’t good enough sometimes. Honestly, when I look at the essay AI produced, what I thought to myself is that the essay could serve as a good introduction to an ACTUAL essay. Because AI makes no attempt to prove its point. It just makes a few good observations and moves on.
But I think that may be the problem – the disconnect if you will.
A lot of people are happy with a generic response. It kind of addresses the question, makes a few interesting insights, and moves along. And so many people think that is what everyone is looking for. Students are often shocked to find that just stating their position is not responsive. AI hasn’t learned that lesson.
AI is going to change the world. There is no doubt about that. But we are just now even imagining the ways in which it will do that.
We are all taught to be good capitalists here in America from a very young age. We buy, we sell, we consume. Our emphasis on consumption cannot be overstated. But this is where we need to be very careful in how we explore the connection between AI and capitalism.
As good American capitalists, we know that our place in society, our communal standing, and even our identity is based on our ability to consume. We buy all those social markers of American completion – cars, houses, entertainment systems – and that which we consume bolsters our position within our communities. If you don’t like that observation, just ask yourself where you can go without consuming these days. You have to pay to occupy space. Buy a latte, watch a movie. There are very few places and experiences in America that are not defined by consumption. Maybe the library or parks are a last-standing free space? But the point is, we are taught that we must constantly be consuming. And I’m not going to go all “old man yells at cloud” on you. I have been on the receiving end of many a lecture about how we shouldn’t feel the need to consume to spend our time. But most of the people (not all, but most) who lecture to you like that don’t really mean it – they just mean that they want you to engage in a particular kind of consumption. Don’t watch TV – read a book! Well, surprise, you’re still consuming. Don’t watch a movie or stay in on your computer – ride your bike! Well, where do you think that bike came from and where do you recommend I ride it? We pay for all of it. We consume constantly. People can get as elitist and high-minded about it as they want. But choosing to consume an academic book does not put you on a higher level than the person who is watching Barbie for the fourth time.
This is why the intersection of capitalism and automation is so rife for exploration! Because we are raised to be consumers, and right now a lot of what AI is being touted for is creating more for us to consume. Visual art, pieces of journalism, emails you send to a coworker – these are all things people are using AI for. And one of the themes is that these tend to be capitalistic endeavors.
AI is going to be able to produce more content in the next year than whole swarms of people could in multiple lifetimes. It is perfectly efficient. But it is producing things that serve no other function or achieve no other goal than “it is consumable.” So it kind of falls to us to be discerning. Just because I consume something doesn’t make it actually valuable. And that’s what the glut of AI material is forcing us to come to terms with. We consume a lot of junk.
To close out today, I will return to the paper I asked ChatGPT to write about AI and capitalism. The essay was a bit too long to include the whole thing in my little podcast, but it sums up pretty much what all of this is about. So I am leaving you with the conclusion of that essay. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if it is any good or not:
“The intersection of capitalism and artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and challenges for society. While capitalism has been a driving force behind technological innovation, its unchecked pursuit of profit may pave the way for AI to disrupt societal norms and exacerbate inequalities. Addressing these risks requires a concerted effort to balance economic incentives with ethical considerations and societal well-being. By enacting robust regulatory frameworks, prioritizing ethical AI development, investing in social safety nets, and promoting public engagement and education, we can harness the transformative potential of AI while safeguarding against its detrimental impacts on society. Failure to do so risks undermining the very fabric of our social and economic systems, with potentially dire consequences for humanity.”
*The music at the beginning and conclusion of the AI podcast was produced by AI for non-commercial uses.
Music in this episode is “Fearless First” by Kevin MacLeod at https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3742-fearless-first.
Leave a Reply