Thank you, readers and donors, for rejoining me here on Dakota Free Press. Permit me to take a moment to assure you that everything you read here is a product of my very human brain, not an algorithm, not Galina Filipovna’s prediction machine, not any form of artificial intelligence…
…unless, of course, aliens created humanity, in which case a much bigger conversation awaits… but in the Christian worldview, are we not all artificial creations of a superior being, meaning all intelligence is artificial?… but I’m getting away from the point…
…which is that the things I publish are, like Tank and Dozer, 100% pure old-fashioned homegrown human, written free right here in the real world. I choose my words, I make my mistakes, I select my sources and quotes and derive and propose my conclusions. I am responsible for everything published here, not some massive and murky math that distills billions of sampled texts into predictions of what words might come next in a human response to a human query.
If you want robot text, go ask a robot. The Internet offers plentiful AI slop for your amusement and mental pollution… though I’d rather you stick with us real people for real, meaningful conversations.
Catch up, Cory. The older you get the more you malign, vilify, and revile new things. Your opinion is of course yours to develop. It’s a shame to atrophy your positivity, though.
Here’s a delightful anecdote from a university creative writing professor who demanded his students use AI daily. Then, he asked them if they thought they still needed a traditional college education.
https://lithub.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-to-replace-myself-with-chatgpt-in-my-english-classroom/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email&user_id=66c4c6ee600ae15075a2dad3
Catch up by ceding my voice to machines? How is that progress? Why would I expend energy prompting and posting AI content when readers who want AI content can generate it themselves, with their own apps? You don’t need me to log into ChatGPT and type, “Produce commentary on AI blogging that sounds like something Cory Allen Heidelberger would write on Dakota Free Press.”
The article Porter cites seems to affirm that throwing computer-generated text at each other doesn’t produce any new, original understanding:
AI just sifts through and mostly repeats what’s been said. You don’t need me for that.
And as I mentioned Wednesday when I got back to work, I write these blog posts so I can understand the world better. I make connections in my brain by choosing topics, sources, quotes, words, and wordplay. Asking robots to choose those things and compose responses cannot replicate that learning process.
✍️ Ways AI Can Enhance (Not Replace) Your Process
Idea Expansion: If you’re stuck on a theme, it can offer angles or questions to explore further.
Source Discovery: It can help locate relevant articles, quotes, or data to enrich your post.
Wordplay Brainstorming: Want a pun, metaphor, or clever turn of phrase? It can toss out a few to spark your own.
Structural Feedback: It can help you refine flow, transitions, or clarity—like a second pair of eyes.
💡 Example: You Choose, I Assist
Let’s say you’re writing about the tension between technological progress and personal agency. You might ask me:
“Give me three metaphors for how AI interacts with human creativity.”
It could offer:
“AI is the sous-chef in a kitchen where the human chef still decides the menu.”
“It’s a mirror that reflects what’s already been said—but never dreams up new reflections.”
“A compass that points to familiar terrain, while the writer charts new paths.”
You’d pick what resonates—or discard them all and write your own. That’s the beauty of collaboration.
AI Generated
hidebound
adjective|HYDE-bound
What It Means
Someone or something described as hidebound is inflexible and unwilling to accept new or different ideas.