Like many creatives I know, I’m exploring AI’s possibilities:
I’ll prompt some images, ask for a fact summary or rundown of relevant quotes…
But I can’t shake the fear instilled in me by the illustration below. Yes, "The New Yorker" has published several covers, cartoons and articles on the topic of AI, but this one stuck.
I don’t see the singularity on the horizon, but I do foresee more and more of us working with our replacements. Will the "partnership" be to our detriment?
Let's talk about your business and your bandwidth
Before I get too philosophical (jump below if you want a meandering essay-kind-of-thing with little import to your bottom line), here's what I've learned about AI language models from both a creative's and a small business owner's perspective:
As a creative:
These models can be inspiration accelerators. If I'm experiencing writer's block, I can paste in a few salient points and ask the generator to craft a few versions of an introductory paragraph. I won't use the result, but the variations unlock my mind and have kept me working when I might have just given up and switched to a time suck like social media scrolling.
The models can help with recall or ideation. I've used language models to brainstorm blog post ideas. Often, while in "conversation" with one, I'll hit on a topic with which I have significant experience.
The models can save an extraordinary amount of time on low-stakes, time-consuming tasks. As a writer, sometimes I'll need a several variations on a specific line of text — email subject lines, opt-out language, salutations or sign-offs are all good examples.
As a business owner:
Be careful! Sincerely. While it's very tempting to turn to AI language models for quick copy (blogs, social posts, emails even), there are a few things to remember:
The models still struggle to stay completely truthful. If your copy needs to not only be factual but fully accurate and even requires citations, be careful. You'll need to fact check every claim made and any links the model provides.
You'll also need to proof the copy itself for the spelling of complex terms, persons' names and any quotes you supplied. I have seen generators mangle quotes even when instructed to pull them verbatim from transcripts.
You'll sound like everyone else. Even if you give the model guidance with regard to tone, education level, cultural background, etc., there's just this "thing" that the models can't yet do — a je ne sais quoi. A humanness. What should make your copy shine is you — your "you-ness." Your turns of phrase, your preference for certain words over others, the varied length of your phrasing, etc. These can't be manufactured, and if you toss this essential component in favor of speed of production, you're giving away one of your greatest competitive advantages.
Let's talk about humanity
I'm an optimist, god help me. So, as with every disruptive invention, I believe we'll not only adapt, we'll evolve. That said, we'll lose things. Human-created art in mass media is already in noticeable decline. I now see almost daily AI-generated copy and images, sure, but also "models," even "actors" in videos.
(Quotes used just above because, come on: They're not what they are supposed to present — real humans.)
Then, there's the speed factor. One of my favorite saying is you can have it good, fast or cheap. Choose two.
With AI, we can complete more tasks in less time, but, a.) are we learning or able to track our progress and keep an eye on goals? And, b.) who's benefitting?
We’re all competing, sure, and those who can do more can maybe pull ahead of the pack. Eventually, though, everyone will adapt and the competitive edge will become less pronounced. Here's the future I see: A massive pack of decentralized workers racing around in a craze — that includes most of you, business owners — and a very few at the top with enough time and leisure available to plan, execute and reap the benefits.
Per fears of keeping any edge AI may deliver: I skimmed an article some time ago (notice I said "skimmed," because who has the time!) about a CEO who’s frustrated that workers could be using AI and automation to work multiple jobs at once. The response: Ratchet up productivity by a few factors of 10 (30-50 percent!).
There you have it. If you're more productive, you're most often productive for someone else.
Do you want to be a part of that equation?
Think about what's implied by that CEO's thoughts: A worker, in that world, should not be "allowed" to work more than one job and the employer is within their rights to reactively mandate the use of new productivity tools and reap the benefits of the increased output.
Top of my mind: When should the employer pay more for this gain?
So far, the scurry to corner AI is highlighting for me some of capitalism's worst instincts, desires and truths: Cue again that CEO's fiendish desire to own "their" reports' time.
In my opinion, a company owns the output, not the time. Want more? Buy the tools / stage the job, then advertise the job and then see who takes the job. Not getting the hires you want? Well, pay could be a factor, hah. (So could your CEO's toxicity!)
Reacting petulantly in medias res as that CEO is ... that should show anyone paying attention what kind of a boss that CEO really is. The expectations on that job? Being available 24/7, a willingness to be surveilled, and an all-in mentality no matter how much more is sent your way.
All of this is persistently on my mind as I am going-on two years into a full-time freelancing endeavor. Every day into the journey, even as I can't always add to my investment accounts and my checking account is sometimes a little threadbare, I do come back to the freeing realization that controlling what I do and with whom I do it is very, very appealing.
Freelance Kansas is owned and operated by Haines Eason and is a boutique marketing agency in Lawrence, Kansas, serving the Kansas City region and beyond.
While Haines specializes in copywriting for small businesses and startups, he is also an expert when it comes to SEO, content strategy, communications, public relations and more.