“Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only insofar as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity.” Hegel, Science of Logic
The idea for this article emerged at the very moment I was about to write professional content on technology and management using artificial intelligence. With each interaction with the AI, questions echo in my mind about this astonishing technological capability. At the same time, the interruptions from lengthy past discussions about artificial intelligence and its potential sporadically disrupt this thought process.
I observe with a bit of distance that the same layer of abstraction that obscures certain economic or legal mechanisms and makes them difficult to grasp concretely also covers this technological achievement. This ambiguity seems to be deliberately created in economics to keep certain rights protected and inaccessible. What about artificial intelligence?
Understanding the Machine That Understands Us
Flat and cold is the writing that artificial intelligence suggests to me every time I prompt it, to the point that I become bored while reading it. I suggest more vibrant styles, and the robot tirelessly adapts its style and discourse. Over time, I began to distinguish the robot's writing from human writing. Despite my efforts to train it through prompts to develop more human-like content, the humanoid does not fully achieve its transformation.
The question that has lingered for a long time after these experiences is the following: why can't the robot's writing simulate human writing? What makes it possible for me to distinguish the robot's voice in its text?
Some might say that the robot's voice is not as bothersome as it might seem, as long as it is informative and answers our questions. From my experience with the machine, however, the provision of information is, in fact, not significant. Most responses are general statements that the machine can alter if we challenge it, while also presenting counter-statements that are equally general, lacking in analytical depth, supporting data, or citations.
These generalities, developed in a robotic style and lacking critical substance, result in content that is bland and lifeless. Does the machine truly manage to distinguish its discourse and style from ours? Does it understand our frustration with its inability to write like a human?
“What Jacques Derrida perceived in the technique of writing is a play of difference in meaning. This is because what is written is always subject to enduring beyond the author's subjectivity and to being interpreted differently depending on historical and societal contexts.”
Clearly, devoid of subjectivity, the machine’s writing lacks movement. One can read its inertia through the lines, its absence of rational and emotional perspective. The artifice of reason is very distinct from pure reason in that the robot's lack of subjectivity prevents it from anticipating human reactions to its output, or at best, predicts them in a stochastic manner devoid of sensitivity and understanding.
Artificial intelligence does not replace us; it shifts us
Proponents of AI fervently assert whenever the opportunity arises in conferences, on social media, and through their articles that artificial intelligence is not here to replace us, but rather to help us accomplish our tasks more quickly, more efficiently, and with less effort. Is this a defense of an achievement or a form of denial?
Indeed, suggestions and encouragements to write using AI are multiplying on social media, blogs, and in professional environments, and I assume that in the near future, these incentives will also reach academic circles. How can one refrain from benefiting from the fruits of this shared knowledge to build even more knowledge?
To write this article entirely by hand, without the aid of the machine, I had to rely on my beliefs, draw on my past experiences—meaning my personal history—document and read a few articles, listen to a podcast, learn new concepts, and construct a certain discursive unity to support my biases, all while keeping in mind the intention of persuading other subjectivities or conveying to them a previously imperceptible point of view.
If I had chosen the shorter path of writing with AI, my approach and actions would have been very different. A significant effort in research and learning would have been omitted. What would remain is mere disinterested reading, passive editing, and exploitation of the machine's output. This output, generated by invoking a vast database through a modeling architecture, would not be as intentional towards other consciousnesses and could go unnoticed, given how unpleasant the reading experience might be.
As I read through the articles, I perceive a metaphor mentioning a particular resemblance between my experience with the calculator and that with ChatGPT. Through the calculator, I learned to free myself from the burden of calculation to the point that part of the multiplication table remains inactive in my mind to this day. Certain tasks in my professional journey required instant calculations, and I always relied on the calculator when it was within reach, even for the most ordinary calculations.
I am beginning to perceive this dependency on the machine with writing using AI. Relying on this tool to "enhance our skills" is not just a presupposition for creating a new division of labor, but also a way of supplanting our own learning mechanisms and knowledge by installing new habits. This dependency contributes to thickening, with each use, the layer of abstraction that separates us from questioning and truly understanding the machine, and it builds an uncontrolled autonomy of the robot that increasingly exceeds human comprehension.
Conclusion
The emergence of artificial intelligence in the field of writing is a phenomenon that evokes both fascination and concern. As Hegel pointed out, contradiction is at the heart of movement and evolution, and it is at the intersection of these contradictions that we find the true dynamism of human and technological systems. Writing generated by AI, while impressive in its speed and processing ability, remains marked by a coldness and uniformity that betray its lack of subjectivity and emotional depth.
Despite its advancements, AI cannot fully imitate human writing. Its output remains imbued with an inertia that limits its ability to capture the complexity of human thought and emotion. This reality highlights a fundamental contradiction: AI can assist us in our tasks, but it does not replace the authenticity and richness of human creation.
Proponents of AI claim that it is here to assist us, not to replace us, but this assistance comes at a cost. By delegating cognitive and creative tasks to the machine, we risk diminishing our intellectual engagement and losing an essential part of our learning process. The growing dependence on these technological tools, while convenient, can lead to excessive simplification and increased ignorance of our own capabilities.
Thus, the crucial question we must ask ourselves is that of balancing the use of these technologies with the preservation of our creative autonomy. AI should be seen as a complement to our efforts, not a substitute. We must remain vigilant to ensure that this dependence does not diminish our ability to engage meaningfully with the world of ideas and creativity. Ultimately, it is in this tension between technological efficiency and human authenticity that we will find the most enriching paths for writing in the age of artificial intelligence.
* This conclusion is written using AI based on the preceding text to allow the reader to judge the machine’s writing in comparison to human writing.
* This text, originally in French, is also translated using AI.