top of page

Suddenly, everyone can write thanks to CHAT-GPT and AI, or can they?

It seems quite convenient to use all these AI tools like Chat-GPT, and I do see a lot of potential in them, but the downside I experience is that suddenly everyone thinks they can write.

I was always irritated by those SEO-optimized texts bought from overly expensive SEO agencies, but recently I have never seen so many terrible articles. AI in its current form is a tool, not a replacement for a lack of your own creativity and writing talent. So there, I've said it!

The Huge Linguistic Creativity of Chat-GPT

I must admit that I was extremely impressed from the first moment by what Chat-GPT could do back then. I say back then because each version becomes better and better.

Although many think advertising is all about visuals, within my advertising agency, one of the most important people was someone who could come up with creative yet practical linguistic approaches. Coming up with that one sentence, finding that one word, or creating that summary that really captures the essence is a skill.

We had a few, and perhaps the most uniquely talented person was Diederick. He was someone who floated between the concept of 'crazy' and 'genius'. He could say and think of things that made you know he was not from this planet and he could say and think of things that had nothing to do with the question, subject, or assignment. A bit like the current Chat-GPT, actually.

When I think back to how I gave Diederick a briefing for a creative job, or now when I do it with Chat-GPT, there's little difference. What does differ is that Chat-GPT is free, never oversleeps, is much faster, knows more, understands things quicker, offers more creative variation, never feels attacked when I say it's talking nonsense and the answer is worthless and never falls asleep drunk on the office couch on a weekday at 4 pm.

In short, for inspiration, Chat-GPT is a threat to every conceptual and textual creative like Diederick.

CHAT-GPT Cannot Write Articles

No matter how creatively CHAT-GPT and AI play with words, they truly cannot write articles. Perhaps I should explain, because there is, of course, a difference between an article and a listing of facts that some people also label as an article.

An article has a certain writing style, reflects the author's thought process, tells about a vision or what the author has experienced, and delves deeply into the subject. After reading, you know something more about the subject, and often you are drawn into a story, making you want to read or know more.

What CHAT-GPT does when you ask for an article is create a list of so-called facts and ideas. Preferably in bullet form, then it's finished quicker. But technically or substantively going into a subject is still beyond AI. It is, after all, a language model and still has little logic. In that sense, it's like Diederick who falls asleep drunk on the couch at any given opportunity.

For example.

I'm not a moon landing denier, but there's always one question I can't get answered, so I asked Chat-GPT. This was the question:

During the first moon landing, Hasselblad cameras were used. The films used then were extremely sensitive, especially to temperature differences. On the moon, there are extreme temperatures. In the shade, behind a rock, it can be -173 degrees Celsius, and in direct sunlight, it can reach 127 degrees. The technology available at the time meant that the films used could only withstand temperatures between -20 and +50 degrees, and even then only for a short duration. A moonwalk could last 1 to 2 hours, and the camera had minimal protection and no cooling. How is this possible?

The answer was: 'If you're shooting digitally, you won't have this problem.'

Just Because It's Linguistically Correct Doesn't Make It An Article