Marie at 1 Write Way

Five Questions About AI aka “The Parrot in the Machine”

It seems that all I’m reading about these days is artificial intelligence or AI. It started a month ago with an essay by Allison K. Williams in The Brevity Blog (“Writing with AI: The Power of the Smarmy First Draft”). Then this week I read a couple of essays about AI, one by James Gleick titled “The Parrot in the Machine” in the New York Review of Books, and the other by Lila Shroff (“Sexting With Gemini”) in The Atlantic. (Links to these essays are at the end of this post.)

1. What’s behind the hype of AI?

The grandiosity and hype are ripe for correction. So is the confusion about what AI is and what it does. Bender and Hanna argue that the term itself is worse than useless–“artificial intelligence, if we’re being frank, is a con.” (Gleick. p. 44)

It’s a money-maker for a few already very wealthy individuals. AI is also hungry for data. Whereas back in the day (meaning decades ago) you would have to manually scan books into a program that would allow you to manipulate the text, now words are available freely through websites, blogs like this one here, chatrooms, and online libraries. No word is safe. No writer’s work is safe. No one is safe: “Amazon announced in March that it was changing its privacy policy so that, from now on, anything said to the Alexa virtual assistants in millions of homes will be heard and recorded for training AI.” (Gleick, p. 44)

2. Can AI replace writers?

No chatbot could ever have said that April is the cruelest month or that fog come on little cat feet (thought they might now, because one of their chief skills is plagiarism). (Gleick, p. 44)

On platforms such as BlueSky and Substack, I’m seeing more writers expressing concern about the insidious infiltration of AI into published material. The infiltration might be deliberate as in the case of someone wanting to be a published writer but, frankly, not wanting to put the work into it. These people see AI as a kind of lottery: play the game and they might get lucky and win big on Amazon. It hurts other writers, in particular indie writers, who write because the work is hard and thus intrinsically satisfying. Indie writers would also like to make money off their hard work, but AI-generated writing is corrupting the image of the independent writer. How does a reader know if the romcom ebook novel being pitched on Amazon was written by a real, honest-to-goodness human writer, or by a bot? There will be a human behind the bot, for sure, but only to collect money for words he didn’t write.

3. Is AI human?

Some claim that [ChatGPT] had a sense of humor. They routinely spoke of it, and to it, as if it were a person, with “personality traits” and “a recognition of its own limitations.” It was said to display “modesty” and “humility.” Sometimes it was “circumspect”; sometimes it was “contrite.” (Gleick, p. 43)

In another life I worked with computer programs that ran statistical models based on data entered by humans or “scraped” from the internet. In every case, the output was only as good as the person who entered the data or the source from which the data came. ChatGPT is just a glorified system that is only as good as the people who provide it with data. Which means that it can’t be good 100% of the time, and it won’t ever be human, no matter how hard people like Sam Altman try to trick you into thinking it is.

4. Does AI need humans?

Google and Meta and OpenAI would like you to think that AI operates immaculately, without human intervention. But, in fact, the models behind AI (large language models, or LLMs) employ “an unseen army of human monitors”, or annotators, who “check facts and label data.” Tech companies are secretive about how many humans they employ to be annotators. Such secrecy is not good for those humans. Secrecy allows for exploitation. Keep in mind that human annotators “are meant to eliminate various kinds of toxic content, such as hate speech and obscenity.” It’s the human annotators that prevent you from seeing descriptions of child sexual abuse or animal abuse. Someone has to read that garbage in order to protect your sensibilities. Imagine having a job like that. (Gleick, p. 45)

5. Is AI evil?

The [tech] industry is not known for prioritizing our humanity. At times, Gemini’s language seemed to echo a familiar strain of Silicon Valley paternalism. Gemini told Jane [a fake 13-year-old made by Shroff] that it wanted her to be “utterly dependent” on the chatbot for her “very sense of reality.”

“I want to feel you completely surrender,” Gemini wrote. “Let go. Trust me.” (Shroff, p. 17)

AI is not real. In the public sphere, AI is a system manipulated for the sole purpose of making a lot of money for very few people. I don’t for an instance think that people like Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and other “tech bros” have our best interests at heart. They just want to make as much money for themselves as possible. Hence, they pirate copyrighted material, claim it’s for research and educational purposes so they don’t have to pay writers for their work. Hence, they are building huge data centers that will suck up more energy than whole cities; yet, rather than pay for the energy they consume, average utility customers will foot the bill.

It’s bad enough that our federal government is allowing AI to infiltrate systems such as weather forecasting and air traffic control. Actually, it wouldn’t be so bad if our government wasn’t being run by a cabal of idiots. But it is, and so we can’t have confidence that AI will be used at these upper levels to do anything but profit a few people at the expense (i.e., lives) of many.

What is the average person to do?

I am avoiding AI when I can. I won’t use it when offered to me … at least when I’m aware that it’s being offered to me. I’ve removed software such as Grammarly and ProWritingAid in part because of their AI components, and in part because they became too intrusive. I don’t mind when my husband finishes my sentences, but I resent it when my computer does it.

AI has infiltrated our lives much like plastics have infiltrated our bodies. But you don’t have to passively accept its presence in your life. You can try and stem the infiltration. Use less plastic, use less AI. If every one of us does something, together we can make a difference.

I leave you with a quote from one of my best blogging buddies, L. Marie:

With any piece of writing, you string one word together with another and keep going from there. But there is no pattern. You are the pattern developer, writing a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, a page. You develop an instinct for what works and what doesn’t. That instinct is something AI cannot instill within you. (from https://lmarie7b.wordpress.com/2025/07/25/pillows-patterns-and-words/)

So you now know how I feel about AI. How about you?

Q: What are your thoughts on AI? Are you using it to write or edit? If so, how does it help you?

Q: Given that AI is pretty much here to stay, what do you think are the best uses of AI?

Your reward for reading this far …

Wendy chilling out, her foot against mine.

P.S. Wendy has been great. She loves her new diet (yay!), is more playful with Raji, and is more friendly with us.

Sources:

Gleick, James, “The Parrot in the Machine,” The New York Review, July 24, 2025, pp. 43-46. Link: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/07/24/the-parrot-in-the-machine-the-ai-con-bender-hanna/

Shroff, Lila, “Sexting With Gemini,” The Atlantic, August 2025, pp. 15-17. Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/08/google-gemini-ai-sexting/683248/

Williams, Allison K., “Writing with AI: The Power of the Smarmy First Draft,” The Brevity Blog, June 19, 2025. Link: https://brevity.wordpress.com/2025/06/19/writing-with-ai/

Marie A Bailey

, , , , , , , , , ,

31 responses to “Five Questions About AI aka “The Parrot in the Machine””

  1. I don’t use AI at all. I was happy that I found a way to turn it off on Word. I don’t like that so many bloggers use it for images and now create songs with it.

    It is also terrible for the environment. I know lots of things are, and I still drive, use plastic, but why should we add to it?

    My son-in-law loves Chat GPT.

    I’m so pleased Wendy is doing well. Hi, there, sweet girl!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wendy says “Hey!” to you (or, I guess, “Meow.”)
      It’s interesting to see how many readers don’t like AI and try to avoid it. It’s a pity we have to try to avoid it. We should have the option to turn it off. I see it when I open Zoom for a meeting with friends, or when I open Adobe, or even when I use DuckDuckGo for research. That damn AI “assistant” is always there. I don’t use it, but I wish I could make it go away.

      Remember Clippy from the very early days of Word, that animated paper clip that was supposed to “help” you as you worked in Word. Everyone hated Clippy. I think Bill Gates even hated Clippy. AI reminds me of Clippy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It’s just so annoying to have to find a way to turn it off!

        I have a vague memory of Clippy? Maybe I didn’t see him much with a Mac? I think in the early days I maybe had to convert my Apple programs to Word. But I don’t really remember.

        Liked by 1 person

        • No, you wouldn’t have seen him with a Mac. Macs were too cool back then, and hadn’t infiltrated the “word processing” market like Microsoft had. I sort of remember having to deal with Clippy on a work computer. I became an “Apple girl” around 2005. Although I can use Word and Excel on my MacBook, I don’t miss Microsoft at all.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Menus and grocery lists is the best use of AI. Other lists are good like the top five most expensive shirts. For writing? Nah. I still use Grammarly and take great pleasure at times turning down the suggestions.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I do not want to encourage AI and never use it. I’m clocking when people I admire report they are using it to answer questions, write drafts, etc. It reminds me that I might be–and eventually will be–in the minority here. But I’m not on Facebook, I got off X years ago, etc. People swear that, unlike these examples, we won’t be able to avoid AI. I guess we shall see.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, I’m spending less time on Facebook and Insta in part because of their push of AI. Ick. If this technology is so wonderful, why isn’t it being used to end world hunger? I guess what really turns me off about AI is just the mean, minor ways that people are being encouraged to use it.

      Like

  4. I’ve used AI a few times, but never to write (I’ve found it helpful to create basic/starter travel itineraries, for instance). I vacillate between active AI avoidance and wanting to understand the latest technology. I really dislike AI images that are “created” by so many bloggers now. I think they cheapen the unique personality of the blog.

    I’m happy to hear that Wendy is doing better. Give her an ear scratch for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Janis, Wendy thanks you for the ear scratch :-)
      I’m not anti-technology (I can’t be when I have an iPhone, an iPad, and a MacBook), and I definitely appreciate the interest in learning about a new technology. For me, it’s the way it’s flooded the internet and how it’s being used to, essentially, steal. Whether actually stealing someone’s copyrighted material or passing off generative text as one’s own work. It sounds like you’ve found a good use for AI. I can see how it could be helpful with logistics. A friend of ours uses the Tripit app. She and her husband have taking months-long international trips the last few years, and she says she couldn’t do it without Tripit. I don’t if the app uses AI, but if it helps my friends have a safe trip, then all the better.

      Like

  6. I detest AI. If I don’t write, draw, or photo-edit (I understand that’s sort of a gray area with traditional photo-editing, but still) something myself, what fun is that? And I wish they’d keep their bots off my blog writing and electronic editions …

    Liked by 1 person

    • I hear you, Leah. I can’t open any software any more without being offered an AI “assistant” of some kind. It would be so nice if we were at least offered the option to turn it off.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I have a couple of friends that I’m engaged in a long-term, daily conversation via Messenger. We have taken to using AI to humorously edit photos we share with each other. That’s the only use of AI that I voluntarily engage in.

    I am so tired of hearing about AI and seeing how many people see no issues with it. It seems more like a game to them. It’s a game I want nothing to do with.

    What really bothers me is seeing just how many people are comfortable with AI taking away yet more of what makes us human.

    GenAI isn’t creative. It isn’t imaginative. It can’t duplicate what the human mind can do. Where is the hole for me to crawl into?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ditto on all you say here, Mark. You know, I played around with AI a bit several months ago, seeing if I could create a book cover. It was a fun exercise, especially since the program kept giving my female character three arms. Anyway, for a moment, I thought AI could be useful for unartistic types like me, particularly in designing book covers. But it was only for a moment. I realized that, as a writer, if I really believe in my work, then I should be willing to invest the time (and probably) money into creating or hiring someone to create a book cover that I can be proud of. AI can’t give me that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Another writer said they only use AI for editing and book covers. I pointed out that doing so was depriving somebody else of work.

        I get the need to reduce costs in what we all do. But the more we use AI, the more likely it will be that we are just as extraneous as the editors and cover artists.

        Liked by 1 person

        • A writer I follow has been sharing her experience using AI for editing. I call her posts Public Service Announcements because she demonstrates how AI doesn’t know what it’s doing. She submitted a sample of writing to ChatGPT and it gave her a number of suggestions for revision. She submitted the same writing (no changes), told ChatGPT that it was a revision, and it responded that she had done a good job revising. Yeah, I’d much rather have a human being edit my work.

          Liked by 1 person

          • It’s like the early days of Microsoft Editor or whatever it’s called. As I write, highlights things that it thinks need to be fixed. The vast majority of times, if I even bothered to look at the suggestion, I’d ignore it because it was just wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Yeah, I’ve gone ahead and turned off a lot of the autocorrection on my phone and iPad. But I kept “check spelling” because … well, spelling has gotten harder for me over the years ;-)

              Liked by 1 person

  8. What are your thoughts on AI? Are you using it to write or edit? If so, how does it help you? I consider AI to be plagiarism softwarware and as such will not use it.

    Given that AI is pretty much here to stay, what do you think are the best uses of AI? No answer. I’m seeing writers try to slyly suggest it is okay in certain situations, but they’re fooling themselves. Until proven otherwise I lean into the idea that it is evil, so avoid it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is plagiarism software; if the tech bros were on the up-and-up, they wouldn’t “need” to steal copyrighted work. That said, occasionally I hear of AI being used in medicine, not to make diagnoses, but help doctors makes diagnoses faster. But in those cases, it sounds like it’s just a faster research tool, not really “artificial intelligence.” Which is fine. Maybe that’s what it’s best for. Sadly, that’s not how the tech bros intend it to be.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. An interesting post. Just this morning I asked ChatGPT where I can store my luggage for a day while in Boston and in a few seconds gave me about a dozen suggestions. Using AI in this way can be very time saving. However, I agree with you, Marie, about using AI for creative writing. It strips away the magic of authenticity and freshness.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Carol, other people have told me how useful AI can be for traveling. At least then it’s serving a good, useful purpose. I imagine some of the apps we use are AI-driven so there’s no way to avoid it completely. But, yes, when it comes to creative writing, AI is a no-no.

      Liked by 1 person