I always wanted to have a letter published in The Economist. I fucking love The Economist. I love how it’s written. I love the range of topics it covers, and I adore its simple and sometime acerbic language. Oh, and I love the covers and they do audio better than everyone else. I don’t always agree – a union nurse for a mum and a design school education means there’s a lot of nurture in my nature. But still. It finally happened. I got a letter published in The Economist.
But perhaps the most interesting thing is that it was partially written by AI. But first, here it is…
TL;DR: My letter was half written by AI.
Here’s the full story. Here’s how I crafted it with ChatCPT.
Me:
Write a short letter to the editor equating the superficiality and low-quality content by wanna-be corporate types on LinkedIn and corporate blogs being no different that generative AI.
ChatGPT:
Dear Editor,
As I peruse the countless articles and posts on LinkedIn and corporate blogs, I can’t help but notice a striking similarity between their often superficial and low-quality content and the text generated by AI. Both seem to be caught in a race to produce content, quantity over quality, with little regard for substance or meaningful contribution.
This phenomenon of wanna-be corporate types churning out buzzword-filled posts is eerily reminiscent of the output we see from generative AI models. Both lack the depth and thoughtfulness that should come from a human touch, leaving us with shallow content that leaves much to be desired.
The irony here is that the very people who should be harnessing the power of AI to tackle complex problems and innovate are instead contributing to the same shallow pool that AI-generated content can produce. In the age of information overload, perhaps it’s time we focus on quality over quantity and prioritize thought-provoking ideas and insights.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Me:
Make it funnier
ChatGPT:
Dear Editor,
I recently had an epiphany while scrolling through the labyrinth of LinkedIn and corporate blogs: It’s like a déjà vu of a world dominated by generative AI! The mind-numbing, buzzword-infested content seems to be caught in an eternal loop of superficiality, making me question if the authors are actually humans or the AI overlords we’ve been warned about.
These wanna-be corporate types, armed with an arsenal of clichés and jargon, valiantly contribute to the ever-growing mountain of shallow content with the same fervor as AI models churning out text. It’s as if they’re engaged in a fierce battle to outdo each other in producing lackluster content, leaving the audience begging for mercy.
The great irony here is that the corporate world, which should be utilizing AI’s potential to solve complex problems and innovate, is falling into the same pit of mediocrity that AI-generated content can sometimes produce. So, let’s shake things up and switch our focus from the quantity of buzzwords to the quality of thought-provoking ideas.
Perhaps, only then can we save ourselves from drowning in this sea of superficiality.
Yours hilariously,
[Your Name]
Me:
Finish with a funny joke
ChatGPT:
Yours hilariously,
[Your Name]
P.S. I wonder if LinkedIn and corporate blogs are secretly the testing ground for AI-generated content. Maybe they’re trying to see if we can tell the difference between a human and a bot – or worse, they’re preparing us to accept our future AI overlords without even noticing the switch!
At this stage I was pretty happy. I had everything that I needed. It was all in pieces but it was all there. So with a little bit of editing, and a quick trip thought Grammarly, this is what I submitted on 6 May 2023:
To:
letters@economist.com:
Subject:
AI vs. Corporate Jargon: A Comical Showdown of Digital Nonsense External
Body:
Shortly after reading “Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation” (Economist, MAY 6TH 2023), I had an epiphany while scrolling through the labyrinth of LinkedIn and corporate blogs: It’s like the future déjà vu of a world dominated by generative AI. The mind-numbing, buzzword-infested content seems to be caught in an eternal loop of superficiality, making me question if the authors are actually humans or the AI overlords we’ve been warned about.
These corporate types, armed with an arsenal of clichés and jargon, valiantly contribute to the ever-growing mountain of shallow content with the same fervor as AI models churning out text. It’s as if they’re engaged in a fierce battle to outdo each other in producing lackluster content, leaving the audience begging for mercy.
Yours exhaustedly,
Adam Horne
Creative Director, Berghs School of Communication
Stockholm, Sweden
A pleasant surprise
A few weeks later I was surprised to get a LinkedIn invitation from someone saying the loved my letter. So it took me a while to click to what was happening. My letter was published in the May 20th edition of the Economist.
It’s really interesting to see the further editing that was done – and makes me wish I always had a real editor at my disposal:
Generative garbage
Shortly after reading the By invitation from Yuval Noah Harari on artificial intelligence (April 28th) I had an epiphany while scrolling through the labyrinth of LinkedIn and corporate blogs. They are the future déjà vu of a world dominated by generative AI. The mind-numbing, buzzword-infested content is caught in an eternal loop of superficiality, making me question if the authors are actually humans or the AI overlords that we’ve been warned about. These corporate types, armed with an arsenal of clichés and jargon, contribute to the growing mountain of shallow content with the same fervour as AI models churning out words, battling each other to produce lacklustre text.
Adam Horne
Creative director
Berghs School of Communication
Stockholm
So that’s the full story. Is it ironic? I don’t think so. I’ve written about the need to work collaboratively and critically with these tools. It’s the best of both worlds. Also, the original idea, that mindless corporate drivel is akin to mindless AI drivel, is the best bit. And that bit is mine.
//A ✍️