Writing is Thinking (or is it?)

“An act of writing is an act of thinking.” William Zinsser, Writing to Learn

I’m a writer (in addition to a bunch of other things) and I was taken aback by a recent article in Atlantic Magazine, “The End of High School English.”

The article, written by an English teacher, provides commentary about OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a “program that generates sophisticated text in response to any prompt you can imagine.”

Whoa! No way!

But the app says “Way!”

I tested this cold piece of technology by entering “What does it mean to have a strategic mindset?” It immediately returned the following.

“A strategic mindset is a way of thinking that involves considering the long term goals and plans of an individual or organization, and making decisions that will help to achieve those goals. It involves taking a broad, holistic view of a situation, and thinking about how different actions and choices can affect the overall outcome. In short, a strategic mindset is focused on the big picture, and is concerned with making effective, long term plans that will help to achieve a specific goal.”

That’s not exactly what I would write but, darn, it’s not bad.

Déjà vu all over again?

So, is the response from ChatGPT real writing? Or is it “automated text?” Will this app be the bane of HS (and college) English teachers? Is it cheating if you use this?

Not sure what you think, but (being an old guy) I remember a college engineering professor who would not allow calculators used during an exam. He wanted to know we could find the answers using “slide rule accuracy.”

I side with Zinsser. Good writing takes thought and analysis. Just like real research is always deeper than what you can find on Google.

Maybe future writers will be judged on the questions they pose of a chat-bot to answer. Maybe they’ll still have to put pen to paper (Yes, I still use pen and paper when I want to really think. It slows the process and gives me time to do the real work.)

When will we cross the chasm?

Geoffrey Moore’s 1991 book, Crossing the Chasm, was an eye-opening read for me. The chasm in the title is the adaptation chasm separating a technology’s early adapters and the mainstream markets. The early adapters see the technology coming fast while the mainstream sees “plenty of time.” And both parties are usually wrong!

We (all of us) were wrong about the chasm associated with “car phones” and, years later, the smartphone. We were wrong about the adoption of factory robots. We were wrong about the adoption speed of autonomous vehicles.

And some of us certainly fell into the cryptocurrency chasm in 2022.

2023 and the paradox of the present

Amy Webb, author of The Signals are Talking, uses a term that I think applies to us as we consider the future of any technology, especially disruptive technology – the paradox of the present.

What she’s pointing out is that we have a hard time seeing beyond what we currently know to be true.

Students will see plenty of uses of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. English teachers (and us “real writers”) will have to adapt or become irrelevant.

I think I’ll go and do some thinking on paper.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

Bill

​