What Is It Like to Sound Like a Bot?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.1043Keywords:
generative AI, composition, writing instruction, intersubjectivityAbstract
This article proposes that the rise of GPT technology presents an opportunity to initiate meaningful discussions in the postsecondary classroom about the connections between writing, language, and personal autonomy. Partly grounded on predictive text, GPT-produced language is often recognizable by its blandness and its proneness to the predictable turn of phrase—qualities that postsecondary students (among others!) often struggle to overcome in their own work. George Orwell famously described relying on cliché as akin to turning oneself into a machine. The analogy arises from the lack of relationality in cliché-riddled writing, a quality similarly found in AI-generated text. Rhetoric and composition theory provides insights into the relational nature of written discourse and, equally, into the places where GPT technology falls short of the profoundly intersubjective and interpersonal elements underlying written communication. Foregrounding these findings in class discussions of GPT tools is a central task in training students to engage critically with such tools. Assignments inviting students to contextualize themselves as writers—linguistically, culturally, discursively—represent an actionable step to help students identify the relational and interpersonal contexts to which GPT output cannot attend.
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 610-23. https://doi:10.1145/3442188
Elbow, P. (2007). Voice in writing again: Embracing contraries. College English, 70(2) 168-188. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472259
Grant-Davie, K. (1997). Rhetorical situations and their constituents. Rhetoric Review, 15(2) 264-279. https://www.jstor.org/stable/465644
Gravett. K. (2022). Relational pedagogies: Connections and mattering in higher education. Bloomsbury Press.
Hargraves, O. (2014). It’s been said before: A guide to the use and abuse of clichés. Oxford University Press.
Lancaster, Z. (2019). Tracking students’ developing conceptions of voice and style in writing. In A. R. Gere (Ed.), Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study (pp. 163-184). University of Michigan Press.
Marchetti, A., Di Dio, C., Cangelosi, A., Manzi, F., & Massaro, D. (2023). Developing ChatGPT’s theory of mind. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 10 https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1189525
Orwell, G. Politics and the English language. The Orwell Foundation. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/
Skorczewski, D. (2000). “Everybody has their own ideas”: Responding to clichés in student writing. College Composition and Communication, 52(2) 220-239.
Tiffany, K. (2023, February 21). Welcome to the golden age of clichés. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/02/ai-chatbots-cliche-writing/673143/
Toner, H. (2023, March 4). First, some basics of how language models like ChatGPT work: Basically, the way you train a language model is by [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/hlntnr/status/1632030583462285312
Warner, J. (2022, December 5). Freaking out about ChatGPT—Part 1. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/freaking-out-about-chatgpt%E2%80%94part-i
Weatherby, L. (2023, April 17). ChatGPT is an ideology machine. Jacobin. https://jacobin.com/2023/04/chatgpt-ai-language-models-ideology-media-production?fbclid=IwAR2UD7Z0Ww8clYc4-Pa4LQKpWy7D5Fja_HpOe1_Y84ZE2l8d_gTtI1aXT6Y
Wu, S., & Rubin, D. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 148-178.
Zinsser, W. (2006). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. Harpercollins.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Amanda Paxton
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.