AI is a Bad Writer

I detested AI "writing" from the beginning--I was never one who thought that AI was soooo amazing, which is rather sad since the programming likely is amazing. But it was presented to me, from Day 1, as writing that was indistinguishable from a professor's writing. 

My reaction, from Day 1, was "well, sure, a professor who is a terrible writer."

Unfortunately, that is a lot of them! Students who try to use AI in my literature course inevitably end up giving me something that sounds like it was written by a pompous Ivy League professor who never does any real research--on anything.

The writing is beyond awful: generic, redundant, full of supposedly sophisticated thesaurus terms hiding hollowness, dangling modifiers (yup, even when "good grammar" is requested), illogical arguments, a lack of decent claims, passive voice, and off-topic information. 

I'm not even talking about the obviously dumb stuff--the so-called "hallucinations." (Watching pro and con AI pundits anthropomorphize a machine, for good or ill, doesn't exactly impress me with their scientific acumen.)

Here is an AI-produced passage:

Recognizing the potential for cognitive development, social interaction, and personal enjoyment, fostering a healthy gaming environment becomes essential. As gatekeepers, parents should engage with their children, exploring age- appropriate games together and understanding the positive impact these experiences can have on skill development  and social dynamics. By fostering open conversations, setting boundaries, and promoting responsible gaming  practices, parents can harness the potential of video games as valuable tools for the growth and development of their children.

Here is what it means:

Seeing the possibility for improved thinking skills, people skills, and fun [dangling modifier]. As the people in charge of what enters the home, parents should work with their children, checking out child-level games together and grasping the good [nonsensical parallelism followed by a vague phrase] can have on improved abilities and people skills. By encouraging their children to talk, creating rules, and encouraging responsible behavior, parents can make video games a useful means for the improvement of their children.

In other words, the passage repeats the same thing over and over without producing any real meat. What type of improved thinking and people skills? How do video games foster "healthy gaming environments"? Specifically? What type of boundaries? What does "age-appropriate" even mean? Which games, for that matter? 

The passage says absolutely nothing--but, hey, it says absolutely nothing a lot!

It is embarrassing how many English and Humanities instructors buy into this stuff.

Even more embarrassing: in the last year, it has gotten WORSE. 

Here is an AI passage produced within the last month:

Whether they reside in a bustling city apartment or a quiet countryside home, cats effortlessly adjust to their surroundings. This adaptability makes them suitable companions for individuals with diverse lifestyles. Additionally, cats are known for being low-maintenance pets, requiring less attention than some other animals, making them an excellent choice for busy individuals.

The same paragraph with my notes:

Whether they reside in a bustling city apartment or a quiet countryside home, cats effortlessly adjust to their surroundings [logical fallacy of hasty generalization—sounds like a generic advertising statement]. This adaptability makes them suitable companions for individuals with diverse lifestyles [such as?]. Additionally, cats are known for [passive voice] being low-maintenance pets, requiring less attention than some other animals, making them an excellent choice for busy individuals. [Off-topic—no longer about cats but about owners.]

Frankly, I expect better from my students. And I always have.