I did a little experiment with AI.
Let me start by admitting that I struggle with writing - probably like most people. I have ideas constantly percolating in the back of my mind, but then struggle to turn those into well-written articles I feel I can share with you. An attachment to perfectionism gets the better of me sometimes.
So, I succumbed to the allure of Artificial Intelligence and the wonder of instant solutions through Chat GPT. I asked it to write a blog article on the topic that I had been working on for the last few weeks. It didn’t disappoint. Within seconds it churned out a concise article according to my specifications and it even did so based on the style and language of our website. I made some edits, even added some references and, eureka! My troubles were a thing of the past! Riding the high, I immediately churned out 2 more articles.
Bliss.
But the nagging sense that this wasn’t really my own work stayed with me. So I justified it by elevating my role to that of editor. Nothing wrong with that, right? But would it pass the test of “who we are” as an organisation? So, I submitted it to the ultimate test - the ‘Marike-test’. Let’s just say Marike has a very high, erm… authenticity detector.
At the next meeting Marike and I had, I asked her what her thoughts were on the 3 articles that I sent to her for input, without disclosing that this was Clinton-AI teamwork.
“Do you really want my honest opinion?”, she asked as she made some tea for us.
“Of course”, I said. Open and honest communication is what I stand for.
“It just feels very formulaic. It doesn’t feel like it has that Clinton-voice.”
Bingo. Test failed.
So I revealed my secret (luckily before she had spent an inordinate amount of time reading and dissecting it). Funny enough, it turns out she wasn’t sure how she would position her feedback that this wasn’t my best writing. Lucky for me, it wasn’t really mine, but I realised that there may still be some potent learnings in this experience for me.
Our conversation soon turned to AI in general, and how it relates to our field of leadership and organisational development: a field that primarily focuses on human connection and interaction. We realise that a monumental shift is no doubt taking place in the world - the kind of which we have probably not experienced in our lifetime thus far, and that we’re interested and curious to see how it will unfold, and committed to continuing our own experimenting with it.
But, there are two additional questions that are front of mind for me at the moment: the first is the question of authenticity; and the second is what it means to really learn something in this age of instant solutions.
What about authenticity?
As illustrated by the semi-moral dilemma of having ‘written’ 3 fairly acceptable articles, the question of whether this really counted as my own work opens up an interesting conversation around authenticity. Interestingly, the article I spent most time on in terms of editing (and basically re-writing entirely) was the one Marike thought was the best out of all three. She sensed there was something different about that one, which is what sparked this piece of writing for me in the first place.
You could argue that even with just normal research, I would have been able to write those articles. Chat GPT just sped up the process. And that the line between original work and not-so-original work has simply become a bit more blurred than it already was. But there is still something to say about not having done the actual work and whether you can really take pride in that.
And, for us as an organisation it begs the question: Is that really who we are?Or do we pride ourselves in doing the work ourselves, even if the eventual outcome is similar.
For us at Anew, it’s still the latter. That, as I’m typing it, feels more aligned to who we are as an organisation. The work, the process and the eventual outcome, is what our work is about.
What about learning?
Which brings me to the second question: what does it mean to really learn something, when the shortcut of instant solutions is readily available? The fact of the matter is, if you asked me what those articles said, I wouldn’t be able to recall every point I made. Because real, deep learning didn’t actually take place. I did not grapple with those topics and I certainly did not distil it for myself through writing and rewriting. Instead, I outsourced the thinking process and therefore also diminished the learning process. And this is the real missed opportunity. Especially since I am someone that sees myself as a lifelong learner.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not here to trash talk AI. I think it’s marvellous and exciting and also a bit scary, so I proceed with cautious curiosity. I think there are endless opportunities to explore. For example, I’ve asked it to act like a facilitation expert and had great conversations about the conundrums facing our world in terms of connection and working with people. It has sparked new ideas for me to consider, and it suggested new methods to try out. I’ve even asked it to simplify a process that would make my administrative life much easier. Brilliant! But when it comes to using AI to do the work for you, when there is value in authentically calling it your own, and when there is value in going through the learning process yourself, that’s where I draw the line in the sand.
I don't quite yet know what AI will mean for the world and how it will fundamentally shape the future, but for now I am guided by the soft voice asking the question “For the sake of what am I using AI?” If I can answer this question and know that the answer is aligned to my values, then I can heartily explore this brave new world!
~ Clinton (I promise)
