(Photo: Chat GPT)
A few weeks ago, Chat GPT5 was announced with mixed studies, some breaths, some strictly. At that time, I was at the early stages of planning an article about an article far more than my usual hunting fields. Before I was curious about Chat GPT5, I called it ‘hard, well -looking and reference research’, ‘trends and stats’, ‘competition issues’, ‘big players’, ‘modern players’, ‘sophisticated stories and events’, ‘light laughs’ and ‘jokes’ and ‘jokes’ and ‘jokes’.
Before he finished thinking and wrote his article for the next two hours. After that I turned back to Chat GPT Tab to read this effort.
There is no other way to say this-Cheet GPT5 article was better than every matriculation you measure: better structure, better writing, more understanding, more deeply, more amazing, filled with ‘sound’ and more interesting to read. I could go but it is very sad. (Note – When I reported a similar incident using the previous version of Chat GPT a few months ago, AI’s attempt was good, but not better than me.
I quickly closed the Chat GPT -5 (a frightened, slamming shut -pandora box) and sent my article for publishing. I, in a good conscience, could not send AI article, even if it was good, even if I was the person who pointed it.
I am struggling to understand why ..
Before I go back to it, another story. One of my colleagues recently wrote a non -fiction book. I talked to him on the occasion of publishing. Renowned international figures provided fading and a foreword. Although my friend is very respectful, modern, acquaintance and successful, and to tell an interesting story, he is not the author. I asked him if he used the past writer? ‘No, I just used the AI,’ was the answer. It took a few weeks to write a book.
Interestingly, he did not see any reason for not using Ai, nor did he feel crime or shame about it. He did not duck and dive this question, and in this book he did not make any small scale of pride that he had indicated. It was a rational decision to use AI. He accelerated the productive process, was cheaper than a ghost writer and (he explained to my eyebrows) had to do a clear job. He asked – If AI can do it for me, why would I write it? It was a fair question that I had no answer.
The book is being sold internationally well, giving readers awareness and happiness. I am unable to advance any reasonable argument against the route that he chose to go here. I am also happy with the success of his book because my friend is capable of telling the story of what he did in his life and he is a terrific person.
I’ve been the author for a long time. Seven books, some plays, hundreds of articles and columns, blogs, posts – I have estimated nearly four million words in the past fifteen years. Writing me is very pleasant and satisfactory. There are many things I don’t know how to do, more than I am comfortable. But I know how to do it.
Now AI knows that it has to be done, at least as well. All this is very important.
Here is an educational standard called the Touris Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), developed by psychologist Alice Paul Touris in 1966, which has been updated several times. The TTCT evaluates many dimensions such as creativity such as ‘originality’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘fluency’. Not surprisingly, researchers have applied tests in AI production in the past few years. Just as is surprisingly (for at least something), AI is reaching the human level in many domains of creativity in numerous human efforts and professions.
One of my musician friends who spends time thinking about these things responds to a completely rational response to the music-yes, but what’s the matter? A good question, but the point is clearly money. Creative output sales. If the economic machine can get creative equipment at a lower cost, it will do so. It doesn’t matter, whether it is a song or architectural design.
The question whether AI will never be a van or azart – is not relevant – people who are on the edge of talented are a fragile. More important are the ones who traditionally work in the ‘creative’ fields and beyond (such as those who think creatively think to deal with engineering, law or accounting issues). They all have taken the shield of unacceptable against the machine. This shield now looks fragile, so fragile that no one could imagine. They will soon be defended against the AI’s inevitable march in all creative thinking.
AI is making more stirring music, more beautiful buildings, more beautiful machines, more devout mathematics, more life -saving medicines, more impressive poetry. It will not matter that they are not human -born – they will be packaged, their names will be associated with the products with human ‘creators’ and they will be sold to customers who do not care about their fragility or care about them.
Which takes me back to his original dilemma. If AI can write a better article than me (which looks like it now), why don’t I instruct him to do it? I can’t find any reason, though I have never done.
This is my ongoing conflict – my compatibility, as well as my good humor, is in danger.
Steven Bockey Sidley is a JBS, a professor of practice at the University of Johannesburg and a partner in the Bridge Capital and a columnist in the Daily Moric. His new book “This Mine: Hao The Hao Crypto Industry is newly appreciated” by the SA in the UK/EU and by the SA in the SA and the Legend Times Group, which is now available. Edit by Brian Morteer.