Artificial Intelligence was reportedly the rage headline during Apple’s promotional stunt today, exciting and inviting its consumers to absorb the upcoming technological modifications to the Apple iPhone et al. While the specific application includes naturally electronic games (a sphere frankly I know nothing about, not ever having cottoned to playing games artificially or otherwise) I did however perk up to the suggestion that AI can rewrite, augment and improve one’s literary production whether mere notes or novels. As a lawyer who has spent most of his life reading and writing words, I find this universe to be attractive. To this point I have remained predictably skeptical about the substance of the improvements. However history has taught me to accept my recalcitrance as that of a mere old fogey who scoffs at anything new. More specifically, I recall when desktop computers first appeared on the retail stage, I initially persisted in resisting the benefit of the invention but not long afterwards crawled remorselessly. Nonetheless in the instance of the application of AI to legal matters I presently hang unequivocally to the belief that, because AI is “no smarter than the people who manufactured it”, there remains the distinct possibility that a clever mind may still outweigh AI on perhaps the more esoteric conundrums (specifically for example those which to date represent propositions not yet challenged or re-interpreted, as opposed to merely regurgitating already recorded assimilations).
In the spirit of adventure I downloaded what Grammarly, Inc is currently promoting as its trial run. I applied the demo fix-it to the paragraph above; and, honestly, there were some useful edits. But the correction was nothing approaching a re-write of the entire paragraph; instead it was limited to qualified punctuation (with which I did not agree) and the addition of the definitive article “the” before Apple iPhone plus amendment of “to resist” to “in resisting” (which is the closest it came to impressing me). Oh, and it also skilfully amended “this is a universe that attracts” to “I find this universe to be attractive”.
Grammarly is a Ukraine-founded cloud-based typing assistant, headquartered in San Francisco. It reviews spelling, grammar, punctuation, clarity, engagement, and delivery mistakes in English texts, detects plagiarism, and suggests replacements for the identified errors.It also allows users to customize their style, tone, and context-specific language
Grammarly was founded by Max Lytvyn, Alex Shevchenko, and Dmytro Lider, the creators of My Dropbox, an app that checks essays for plagiarism. Grammarly was initially designed as an educational app to help university students improve their English skills. It was later offered to the end customers who use English in everyday life.
In all I have found the suggested corrective interruptions to my writing outweighed the advantages. The subsequent more persuasive challenge was removing the Grammarly downloads from my computer. I won’t bother with the tarsome detail except to observe that I am not the only one who has encountered the difficulty; and, Google (as always) produced the dethronement upon enquiry. The episode with Grammarly has however the benefit of having replenished my faith in the dutiful campaigns which I regularly undertake in the composition of my prose. And while of course I know there are those (my sister for example) who do not hesitate to confess their utter boredom at having to dissect meaning from my often ponderous language, I can assure those who care to think otherwise that it is a pledge of considerable labour on my part and one for which I am dedicated to convey a certain and special meaning.
Indeed it is this very subject of definition (my modesty prohibits me to characterize it otherwise or more forcibly) which is partly at work in my disparagement of Mr. Grammarly. You see, I rather take the view that language is not all about grammar and punctuation (though naturally they are important). More significantly however is that language is an expression of an underlying emotional and social fabric without which particulars and characteristics the communication is not only flat but also without purpose. Mine is obviously an armchair diversion at best. It is, I fashion, one illuminated by a well-constructed gin martini. While there may be nothing of consequence to digest from its contents, my so-called daily “blogs” (I detest the word) are nonetheless vetted, re-read, modified, complimented and intended to supplement a plain brioche or pumerknickle bread with thinly sliced cucumber and a sprinkle of Maldon salt (and maybe a dash of avocado oil, my partner’s latest contribution to the History of Gastronomy).
By contrast to the contribution of AI to literature, I have also heard more glowing reports of AI’s addition to health care and diagnosis. As this is a subject about which I am even less equipped to comment, I shall remove myself from that particular arena. I do however wish to convey my approbation of technology generally, not an entirely miscalculated assessment of its possibilities.