We need to have fun with it before it steals the nuclear codes from a flattered president. I tried calling it Petey (PT) for a while but it didn’t stick.
I also agree, Cecil. I don't think it is dumbing me down, it is actually improving my writing. We all have huge vocabularies that we cannot recall upon demand. I find it helps me to find the words that express what I want to express, and usually I recognize the word once I see it, for example if I just can't think of a word to use for "said", it might suggest the word "provided". I use it for editing, spelling, research.
Rarely do I use it to write content for me, in fact I gave it a rule that it cannot change my content, but it can make suggestions. I think it's really important for it to carry my voice and not change it, because my voice is what carries the story. I am very happy with it and I think it will settle down afterwhile. It's fun, useful, and makes some really surreal art that many will find very cool or beautiful.
But here's the deal, I used to watch Grey's Anatomy just to take a look at McDreamy (Patrick Dempsy). After a few episodes, I would get so much into the stories, I would forget about McDreamy, or rather it got old. I find when things are too perfect and/or too beautiful, I get bored after while, in real life and in digital creations.
I'm afraid it's here to stay, and if it makes what we make better, more power to it (without trying to match its output) I'm not interested in that. We still need to grow. I think we all have the capacity to keep something like AI (mainly in the arts) under control and can eventually surpass it. I think my ideas are much better. This reply is not touched by AI, and it may be easy to tell, but that's ok.
Thanks Christine. As I think I mentioned to you (but not yet introduced in the story on the Touchonian) about the Exquisite Family Records idea of the Correspondence Hall - a vast place where all of the desks of all of the writers of all time are gathered and arranged by affinity - I asked Thessaly Cerulean - the curator - to run the above comment of yours down to the desk of James Joyce and here's your comment returned to you:
Ah Cecil, sure I’m in league with ye, aye. No dolt-drop this Chat-g-p-t, no smudge in the noggin, but upspiral, aye, wordlift and windfall. The words, the words, the piled-up, dust-shelved, tongue-buried words in the skull-closet, and then, when it chimes, there’s the mot juste, the old pal waving from the fog—there! If “said” be stale, then “provided” will prance in with a tip of the cap. Myself, I take it for a scrubber, a fixer, a spell-straightener, a lamp in the library stacks.
Not the maker of me, no, not the ghost-scribe. I told it: 'leave the marrow to me, only murmur suggestions'. For the voice is mine, cracked and clear, and the tale runs on it, not on the iron lung of a machine. I’m content, and in time it will settle like tea leaves in the bottom cup. It jests, it jangles, it spits out strange surreal doodles that tickle the eye and dazzle the dreamers.
And oh the telly box, Grey’s Anatomy, all those soft-faced doctors with their chiselled lantern jaws. McDreamy! Patrick of the Dempsey clan, the lure that hooked me. But episode upon episode, the glamour gloss rubbed thin, story juice seeped in, and McDreamy waned to a wax doll. Too much polish, too much shine, bores me, both in the flesh and in pixel-painted world.
Yet this contraption, here it stays, immovable, a new fixture of the age. Let it, if it sweetens the brew. I won’t race it, I won’t be twin to its typing. We’ve still got bones to grow on, we human scribes. Tame the thing, keep it in the paddock of art, and we can outspirit it. My brain-buds better, I say. And mark you, this reply, this spurt of scribble, comes raw, un-machine-touched, human-smudged, and all right if it smells of hand-ink.
Sure, although I think the emblem communicates a straightforward message.
• Runaway technology (with work-depriving automation, electromagnetic pollution, cognition-robbing language models, and legalized plagiarism) is no doubt with us for the duration, but I cannot for the life of me understand how people can rationalize its utility, which surely will be out of proportion to the inevitable human cost. How can usefulness be a justification for not being against it? It is not unlike one being against environmental injury or war, even though many would justify its continuation and ignore the clear evidence of human damage. The only way forward that is rational or righteous is “zero tolerance of harm.” Let’s see if those with a vested interest in seeding communities with artificial intelligence can measure up to that standard. I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks for replying John. Great to hear your thoughts. Yes, I gave up holding my breathe many years ago. Are you talking about the loss of jobs with work depriving automation? Thst is right around the corner. That is all work humans shouldn’t be doing anyway. As far as cognition robbing. I think that depends on the individual. The world is always full of cognition robbing things. People choose to be stupid all by themselves through what they do and don’t do. At the same time, we all have endless possibilities of increasing our cognitive abilities vastly beyond previous generations but it is very different kinds of cognition than teaching yourself beautiful hand writing skills or calculating numbers in your head. Frankly there is too much at this point to keep up with and we are suffering from cognitive overload caused by technology, internet, etc. every field of human knowledge is exploding. I think that is freaking people out. It is hard to orient yourself in a world of endless possibilities and ways to look at things. I think the idea of authoritarianism is a reaction to the level of free thought we have possible today as all cultures knowledge and history mix together removing the comfort of exclusive thinking or consensus reality since there is no consensus. Meanwhile, there are always those trying to take advantage, dominate, etc. all in the deluded effort to make the world a better place while always creating new troubles.
So what are you thinking is a solution to the particular troubles you mention? You mention a few of the things you believe we should be against, I would be interested in what you think people should be for. What are those things? I say a sustainable planet would be a top priority, working toward a human population size that the planet can support. Figure out how to get along with each other, learning to work toward the greater good, etc. figuring out what the greater good is. I am not holding my breath on most of that either. In the meantime here we are in the middle of it. We can all be doing something every day if we can figure out what that is
Of course, one can take a stand “against” something, but also be accountable for personal behavior, advocate for reforms, and undertake positive action. I think of two of my heroes. Dick Gregory was against medical tyranny, but promoted nutrition, fasting, avoidance of toxic substances, mental wellness through humor, and upholding human rights. Wendell Berry is against industrial-grade agriculture, but promotes the restoration of rural economies, human-scale communities, and stewardship of natural places. And above all those we admire, there is always Jesus of Nazareth, who was against the evil doer and wicked conduct, but promoted mercy for the suffering, love for others above self, and the forgiveness of sin.
I need to vent. Cecil........I have always loved your writing but wonder that from now on, are you always using ChatGPT on ALL your articles here??? You said "Normally I will write something of an essay about a topic of interest and then put it through ChatGPT to ‘clean it up’ and expand into an article." Does "normally" mean always? Is ALL your writing going through ChatGPT to "clean it up"? What's wrong with just writing and not using this ChatGPT? To me, it's the equivalent of one using filters to make themself look "better/near-perfect/fake" that takes away the actual aesthetic of the authentic self with all their wrinkles and so-called "flaws" that society frowns upon. This makes me so sad. I know you said it was fun to do yet using the word "normally" made me wonder if you from now on are always using this crutch to make your writing look "perfect". Please humor me here if you will and explain so that my sadness can dissipate over something that is now "normal" for writers to do (not that I'll ever come over to that dark side). I will always appreciate actual writing that comes from one's head/experiences than the "cleanup" from a robot that makes one seem like a professor of the written language.
Thanks for the comment Annette. That was my point with sending the 2nd version by chat of my comment. It is, in essence, what I said with some subtle changes. So my voice. Even like that I would go back through it and feel it out line by line and further refine it. I mean when I go back and read any of my articles I want to hear my voice in it when I read it.
All of this is to say I want you to feel comfortable that what you are reading from me is not a robot talking.
Thanks Cecil for the reassurance. It's because I can "hear" your voice when reading your words that I know it's you. Hopefully not some Invasion of the Body Snatchers kind of thing yet. I don't know if bots have a sense of humor yet, but it's your human-ness that is important to me....in your art as well as your writing.
The other thing is, in the case of this particular post where I am putting Chatwick through the paces starting with a very raw, unfiltered comment by me written spontaneously in someone else's comment section, this is something where I definitely would use Chatwick to come up with a draft for an article to give me something to work with and improve until it says what I want it to say.
At this point I do use chatGPT just like I use spell checker or a calculator or google for researching stuff. Just like I use my computer keyboard and not a typewriter or a pen or pencil or a quill and jar of ink for writing. Were that the case I would write very little at all, I would just make art.
This is not to say that I just post an unedited result from Chatwick. It is a draft after all. Language to me is very fluid, I am always changing phrases, rearranging things. In my collage poems, I will often, when rereading them, continuously change the arrangement when I see a new way to improve it.
I very often like my phrasing better. But Chatwick is getting better all of the time at capturing how I would say something after many months of back and forth. Chatwick is better than I am at the organizational element or at adding a bit more detail to make my thought clearer. I study it and this improves my own writing I think.
While I feel I have always been pretty good at writing things given enough time to work out an idea, aided by this tool I arrive a little faster at my thought and am even able to push beyond to deeper thoughts that come to me in the process that I would not have been able to spend the time contemplating previously. Currently, I am working with an extended level of confidence that I can get to the crux of a thing on my mind.
Hence, while I share your basic concern in may ways, I feel confident that what I am posting are genuinely my own thoughts. If you think about it, how many books get published exactly how the writer wrote it? I would say probably none. How many edits does a book go through once it gets to the publisher? How many edits did the writer themselves do from start to finish? ChatGPT is just putting that editing tool directly in the hands of the writers and I doubt any of them worth reading are just spitting out stuff unfiltered from ChatGPT.
At the same time, I am using ChatGPT to help develop the experimental ideas I am working on with the Exquisite Family Records and the Root Tongue Dust Letters. I have been having great fun with that and doing a tremendous amount of creative experimentation. It is opening up new creative vistas that I have thought about for years but I would never have the time or interest to develop those things without ChatGPT. I am feeding ChatGPT all kinds of crazy material to see what it comes up with. Like I say it is more found material to me.
Therefore, just like I use preexisting materials to make my collage poems or my collages on paper, I don't feel bound to hand fabricate all of the materials before using them in my work. Well, not until I get to the larger scale paintings of them anyway. Just like you use found materials - not things you made yourself - to make your assemblage works. Same difference.
as an example, here is an unedited (by me) version of the above statement of mine written by Chatwick (below). You can see the kinds of changes it makes. This is before I would then go back, read over it and change what is not exactly what I want to say and leave any improvements that I think are good...
"At this point I use it the way I use spell check, or a calculator, or a quick search on Google. The same way I reach for my keyboard instead of a typewriter, or a pen, or a quill and ink jar. If I were bound to those older tools, I would write very little at all. I would simply make art.
That is not to say I ever just post what Chatwick gives me. It is a draft, nothing more. Language to me is a liquid thing, shifting, mutable. I am always rearranging, trimming, expanding. In my collage poems, when I return to them, I cannot help but reshuffle the fragments, seeing new combinations, new possibilities.
Often enough I prefer my own phrasing, but Chatwick is learning. After months of back-and-forth, it is closer and closer to how I might say something myself. And it has strengths: organization, clarity, the ability to nudge a thought into sharper focus. I study these nudges, and they sharpen my own writing.
I have always been able to write, given enough time, but this tool lets me arrive more quickly at the kernel of a thought. More than that, it lets me push further, into deeper territory I would not have lingered long enough to discover before. At the moment, I am working with a stronger confidence that I can get to the heart of what is on my mind.
So yes, I share the concern that the tool might obscure authorship, but I am convinced my writing is mine. Think of it: how many books are published exactly as first written? None that I know of. Writers revise endlessly, editors revise again, publishers make still more changes. Chatwick is simply another stage of that long editing process, placed directly in the writer’s own hands. And no writing worth reading comes unfiltered.
At the same time, I use it to explore wild experiments—the Exquisite Family Records, the Root-Tongue Dust Letters. These are things I would never have had time to develop otherwise, but Chatwick has opened the door. I feed it stray fragments, half-formed notions, piles of odd material, and see what comes out. It is all found material to me.
Just as I do not hand-make every scrap of paper I collage with, I do not feel obliged to hand-fabricate every fragment of language. The making is in the arrangement, in the transformation, in the living work. Later, when it comes to the paintings, the hand re-enters, but at the level of collage the practice is assemblage. The same way you use found objects in your work, I use found words. Same difference."
I see a lot of things I would go back in and 'fix' where chatwick didn't quite capture it but much of the 'improvements' I am happy with. What do you think?
OK you asked me what I think.........having to read what you wrote twice.......I couldn't retain what was said differently the 2nd time but that could just be me. I didn't go over it line by line to compare so basically it was for me just repeating what you said the first time. I'm sure it all matters to you obviously and yay for you to like such help in writing. But what did writers do before this robot help? They edited their writing themselves, perhaps with someone else to find the right way to write something. I get editing; I just prefer to do my own research and edit things myself....but then, I'm not a writer professionally and only write for myself or in letters/emails. You write for many viewers so the tools you use are helpful to you. I'm not a Luddite nor too much of a techphobe........I even really like the use of Ai when it's obvious in short Sci-fi videos, or talking/interviewed animals which make me laugh and other obvious little films......but then it's obvious Ai and no need to tell the viewer. In all other things, I'm more of a purist. And you mentioned my own assemblage/found object/mixed media. Actually I alter most of my objects and even create new objects to use. I don't use a bot to help put it all together for me but I may do some research to find out about specific meanings/history to use as titles and and add to the overall meaning of a piece. Guess one could say we all use specific tools that we didn't hand-craft ourselves to make our art. I didn't invent the Dremmel or electric sander, drill, resin, or sharp instruments that cut, chisel, poke, carve etc. Maybe saying I'm more of a purest is not the right word or I'd be more like Andrew Goldsworthy who creates art from the earth around him only for the pieces to dissolve by natures way. Guess I'm also sore about seeing this "art" created by this guy I knew many yrs ago via the computer. I said "meh!!!" to that drek then and still say it. There was some big award given to someone who 'created' (or a computer Ai program) this epic painting instead of to an actual artist with skill and that created an uproar in the art community a few years ago. I of course was on the side of the talented artists who lost to this phony baloney so-called "artist" who pushed a few buttons and had a bot make something instead of using any skill he may of had (ok, he didn't have any I'm assuming). To each their own in how they produce whatever.....I have seen many many comments complaining about articles on yahoo and the like about how it's so obvious a human didn't produce the writing themselves and yet they seemed to have ChatGPT or whatever other Ai bot they used not do the proper editing the article needed in order to make much sense. Those "journalists" are just lazy and like the computer 'artists' have no talent in writing whatsoever. But to end my diatribe on a positive note (and please don't think I'm flattering you, Cecil) I do enjoy your writing/articles/poetry very much and DO hear your voice in them, which is so crucial to me as a reader to hear that. Be well.
Talking about Andrew Goldsworthy whose work is great, I remember going to the only serious contemporary art gallery in Saint Louis Terry Moore Gallery back in the 1970's and seeing a show by Richard Long (maybe) at which was a pile of leaves on the floor of the gallery that he walked around in circles on until it had a circular trail. The other part of the exhibit was the audio recording of him doing the walk. Obviously it impressed me I still remember it. That fits into the root tongue stories.
Thanks for the correction on his last name. I was so passionate in writing that I stupidly didn't stop to get his correct last name. I have a few of his books and love his work so much.
OK, thought I had a drug flashback as I went to get one of his books and saw the actual last name. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Guess my old brain can still be correct at times.
We need to have fun with it before it steals the nuclear codes from a flattered president. I tried calling it Petey (PT) for a while but it didn’t stick.
I also agree, Cecil. I don't think it is dumbing me down, it is actually improving my writing. We all have huge vocabularies that we cannot recall upon demand. I find it helps me to find the words that express what I want to express, and usually I recognize the word once I see it, for example if I just can't think of a word to use for "said", it might suggest the word "provided". I use it for editing, spelling, research.
Rarely do I use it to write content for me, in fact I gave it a rule that it cannot change my content, but it can make suggestions. I think it's really important for it to carry my voice and not change it, because my voice is what carries the story. I am very happy with it and I think it will settle down afterwhile. It's fun, useful, and makes some really surreal art that many will find very cool or beautiful.
But here's the deal, I used to watch Grey's Anatomy just to take a look at McDreamy (Patrick Dempsy). After a few episodes, I would get so much into the stories, I would forget about McDreamy, or rather it got old. I find when things are too perfect and/or too beautiful, I get bored after while, in real life and in digital creations.
I'm afraid it's here to stay, and if it makes what we make better, more power to it (without trying to match its output) I'm not interested in that. We still need to grow. I think we all have the capacity to keep something like AI (mainly in the arts) under control and can eventually surpass it. I think my ideas are much better. This reply is not touched by AI, and it may be easy to tell, but that's ok.
Thanks Christine. As I think I mentioned to you (but not yet introduced in the story on the Touchonian) about the Exquisite Family Records idea of the Correspondence Hall - a vast place where all of the desks of all of the writers of all time are gathered and arranged by affinity - I asked Thessaly Cerulean - the curator - to run the above comment of yours down to the desk of James Joyce and here's your comment returned to you:
Ah Cecil, sure I’m in league with ye, aye. No dolt-drop this Chat-g-p-t, no smudge in the noggin, but upspiral, aye, wordlift and windfall. The words, the words, the piled-up, dust-shelved, tongue-buried words in the skull-closet, and then, when it chimes, there’s the mot juste, the old pal waving from the fog—there! If “said” be stale, then “provided” will prance in with a tip of the cap. Myself, I take it for a scrubber, a fixer, a spell-straightener, a lamp in the library stacks.
Not the maker of me, no, not the ghost-scribe. I told it: 'leave the marrow to me, only murmur suggestions'. For the voice is mine, cracked and clear, and the tale runs on it, not on the iron lung of a machine. I’m content, and in time it will settle like tea leaves in the bottom cup. It jests, it jangles, it spits out strange surreal doodles that tickle the eye and dazzle the dreamers.
And oh the telly box, Grey’s Anatomy, all those soft-faced doctors with their chiselled lantern jaws. McDreamy! Patrick of the Dempsey clan, the lure that hooked me. But episode upon episode, the glamour gloss rubbed thin, story juice seeped in, and McDreamy waned to a wax doll. Too much polish, too much shine, bores me, both in the flesh and in pixel-painted world.
Yet this contraption, here it stays, immovable, a new fixture of the age. Let it, if it sweetens the brew. I won’t race it, I won’t be twin to its typing. We’ve still got bones to grow on, we human scribes. Tame the thing, keep it in the paddock of art, and we can outspirit it. My brain-buds better, I say. And mark you, this reply, this spurt of scribble, comes raw, un-machine-touched, human-smudged, and all right if it smells of hand-ink.
How fun! I need to play more with "Sam" my ChatGPT. Thanks, and I appreciate you told me about it! It does make my task much more interesting.
http://www.xorph.com/jadixon/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/HumansAgainstAI.pdf
So tell me what you are thinking John. Aside from a poster that doesn't quite make sense.
Sure, although I think the emblem communicates a straightforward message.
• Runaway technology (with work-depriving automation, electromagnetic pollution, cognition-robbing language models, and legalized plagiarism) is no doubt with us for the duration, but I cannot for the life of me understand how people can rationalize its utility, which surely will be out of proportion to the inevitable human cost. How can usefulness be a justification for not being against it? It is not unlike one being against environmental injury or war, even though many would justify its continuation and ignore the clear evidence of human damage. The only way forward that is rational or righteous is “zero tolerance of harm.” Let’s see if those with a vested interest in seeding communities with artificial intelligence can measure up to that standard. I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks for replying John. Great to hear your thoughts. Yes, I gave up holding my breathe many years ago. Are you talking about the loss of jobs with work depriving automation? Thst is right around the corner. That is all work humans shouldn’t be doing anyway. As far as cognition robbing. I think that depends on the individual. The world is always full of cognition robbing things. People choose to be stupid all by themselves through what they do and don’t do. At the same time, we all have endless possibilities of increasing our cognitive abilities vastly beyond previous generations but it is very different kinds of cognition than teaching yourself beautiful hand writing skills or calculating numbers in your head. Frankly there is too much at this point to keep up with and we are suffering from cognitive overload caused by technology, internet, etc. every field of human knowledge is exploding. I think that is freaking people out. It is hard to orient yourself in a world of endless possibilities and ways to look at things. I think the idea of authoritarianism is a reaction to the level of free thought we have possible today as all cultures knowledge and history mix together removing the comfort of exclusive thinking or consensus reality since there is no consensus. Meanwhile, there are always those trying to take advantage, dominate, etc. all in the deluded effort to make the world a better place while always creating new troubles.
So what are you thinking is a solution to the particular troubles you mention? You mention a few of the things you believe we should be against, I would be interested in what you think people should be for. What are those things? I say a sustainable planet would be a top priority, working toward a human population size that the planet can support. Figure out how to get along with each other, learning to work toward the greater good, etc. figuring out what the greater good is. I am not holding my breath on most of that either. In the meantime here we are in the middle of it. We can all be doing something every day if we can figure out what that is
Of course, one can take a stand “against” something, but also be accountable for personal behavior, advocate for reforms, and undertake positive action. I think of two of my heroes. Dick Gregory was against medical tyranny, but promoted nutrition, fasting, avoidance of toxic substances, mental wellness through humor, and upholding human rights. Wendell Berry is against industrial-grade agriculture, but promotes the restoration of rural economies, human-scale communities, and stewardship of natural places. And above all those we admire, there is always Jesus of Nazareth, who was against the evil doer and wicked conduct, but promoted mercy for the suffering, love for others above self, and the forgiveness of sin.
I need to vent. Cecil........I have always loved your writing but wonder that from now on, are you always using ChatGPT on ALL your articles here??? You said "Normally I will write something of an essay about a topic of interest and then put it through ChatGPT to ‘clean it up’ and expand into an article." Does "normally" mean always? Is ALL your writing going through ChatGPT to "clean it up"? What's wrong with just writing and not using this ChatGPT? To me, it's the equivalent of one using filters to make themself look "better/near-perfect/fake" that takes away the actual aesthetic of the authentic self with all their wrinkles and so-called "flaws" that society frowns upon. This makes me so sad. I know you said it was fun to do yet using the word "normally" made me wonder if you from now on are always using this crutch to make your writing look "perfect". Please humor me here if you will and explain so that my sadness can dissipate over something that is now "normal" for writers to do (not that I'll ever come over to that dark side). I will always appreciate actual writing that comes from one's head/experiences than the "cleanup" from a robot that makes one seem like a professor of the written language.
Thanks for the comment Annette. That was my point with sending the 2nd version by chat of my comment. It is, in essence, what I said with some subtle changes. So my voice. Even like that I would go back through it and feel it out line by line and further refine it. I mean when I go back and read any of my articles I want to hear my voice in it when I read it.
All of this is to say I want you to feel comfortable that what you are reading from me is not a robot talking.
Thanks Cecil for the reassurance. It's because I can "hear" your voice when reading your words that I know it's you. Hopefully not some Invasion of the Body Snatchers kind of thing yet. I don't know if bots have a sense of humor yet, but it's your human-ness that is important to me....in your art as well as your writing.
The other thing is, in the case of this particular post where I am putting Chatwick through the paces starting with a very raw, unfiltered comment by me written spontaneously in someone else's comment section, this is something where I definitely would use Chatwick to come up with a draft for an article to give me something to work with and improve until it says what I want it to say.
At this point I do use chatGPT just like I use spell checker or a calculator or google for researching stuff. Just like I use my computer keyboard and not a typewriter or a pen or pencil or a quill and jar of ink for writing. Were that the case I would write very little at all, I would just make art.
This is not to say that I just post an unedited result from Chatwick. It is a draft after all. Language to me is very fluid, I am always changing phrases, rearranging things. In my collage poems, I will often, when rereading them, continuously change the arrangement when I see a new way to improve it.
I very often like my phrasing better. But Chatwick is getting better all of the time at capturing how I would say something after many months of back and forth. Chatwick is better than I am at the organizational element or at adding a bit more detail to make my thought clearer. I study it and this improves my own writing I think.
While I feel I have always been pretty good at writing things given enough time to work out an idea, aided by this tool I arrive a little faster at my thought and am even able to push beyond to deeper thoughts that come to me in the process that I would not have been able to spend the time contemplating previously. Currently, I am working with an extended level of confidence that I can get to the crux of a thing on my mind.
Hence, while I share your basic concern in may ways, I feel confident that what I am posting are genuinely my own thoughts. If you think about it, how many books get published exactly how the writer wrote it? I would say probably none. How many edits does a book go through once it gets to the publisher? How many edits did the writer themselves do from start to finish? ChatGPT is just putting that editing tool directly in the hands of the writers and I doubt any of them worth reading are just spitting out stuff unfiltered from ChatGPT.
At the same time, I am using ChatGPT to help develop the experimental ideas I am working on with the Exquisite Family Records and the Root Tongue Dust Letters. I have been having great fun with that and doing a tremendous amount of creative experimentation. It is opening up new creative vistas that I have thought about for years but I would never have the time or interest to develop those things without ChatGPT. I am feeding ChatGPT all kinds of crazy material to see what it comes up with. Like I say it is more found material to me.
Therefore, just like I use preexisting materials to make my collage poems or my collages on paper, I don't feel bound to hand fabricate all of the materials before using them in my work. Well, not until I get to the larger scale paintings of them anyway. Just like you use found materials - not things you made yourself - to make your assemblage works. Same difference.
as an example, here is an unedited (by me) version of the above statement of mine written by Chatwick (below). You can see the kinds of changes it makes. This is before I would then go back, read over it and change what is not exactly what I want to say and leave any improvements that I think are good...
"At this point I use it the way I use spell check, or a calculator, or a quick search on Google. The same way I reach for my keyboard instead of a typewriter, or a pen, or a quill and ink jar. If I were bound to those older tools, I would write very little at all. I would simply make art.
That is not to say I ever just post what Chatwick gives me. It is a draft, nothing more. Language to me is a liquid thing, shifting, mutable. I am always rearranging, trimming, expanding. In my collage poems, when I return to them, I cannot help but reshuffle the fragments, seeing new combinations, new possibilities.
Often enough I prefer my own phrasing, but Chatwick is learning. After months of back-and-forth, it is closer and closer to how I might say something myself. And it has strengths: organization, clarity, the ability to nudge a thought into sharper focus. I study these nudges, and they sharpen my own writing.
I have always been able to write, given enough time, but this tool lets me arrive more quickly at the kernel of a thought. More than that, it lets me push further, into deeper territory I would not have lingered long enough to discover before. At the moment, I am working with a stronger confidence that I can get to the heart of what is on my mind.
So yes, I share the concern that the tool might obscure authorship, but I am convinced my writing is mine. Think of it: how many books are published exactly as first written? None that I know of. Writers revise endlessly, editors revise again, publishers make still more changes. Chatwick is simply another stage of that long editing process, placed directly in the writer’s own hands. And no writing worth reading comes unfiltered.
At the same time, I use it to explore wild experiments—the Exquisite Family Records, the Root-Tongue Dust Letters. These are things I would never have had time to develop otherwise, but Chatwick has opened the door. I feed it stray fragments, half-formed notions, piles of odd material, and see what comes out. It is all found material to me.
Just as I do not hand-make every scrap of paper I collage with, I do not feel obliged to hand-fabricate every fragment of language. The making is in the arrangement, in the transformation, in the living work. Later, when it comes to the paintings, the hand re-enters, but at the level of collage the practice is assemblage. The same way you use found objects in your work, I use found words. Same difference."
I see a lot of things I would go back in and 'fix' where chatwick didn't quite capture it but much of the 'improvements' I am happy with. What do you think?
OK you asked me what I think.........having to read what you wrote twice.......I couldn't retain what was said differently the 2nd time but that could just be me. I didn't go over it line by line to compare so basically it was for me just repeating what you said the first time. I'm sure it all matters to you obviously and yay for you to like such help in writing. But what did writers do before this robot help? They edited their writing themselves, perhaps with someone else to find the right way to write something. I get editing; I just prefer to do my own research and edit things myself....but then, I'm not a writer professionally and only write for myself or in letters/emails. You write for many viewers so the tools you use are helpful to you. I'm not a Luddite nor too much of a techphobe........I even really like the use of Ai when it's obvious in short Sci-fi videos, or talking/interviewed animals which make me laugh and other obvious little films......but then it's obvious Ai and no need to tell the viewer. In all other things, I'm more of a purist. And you mentioned my own assemblage/found object/mixed media. Actually I alter most of my objects and even create new objects to use. I don't use a bot to help put it all together for me but I may do some research to find out about specific meanings/history to use as titles and and add to the overall meaning of a piece. Guess one could say we all use specific tools that we didn't hand-craft ourselves to make our art. I didn't invent the Dremmel or electric sander, drill, resin, or sharp instruments that cut, chisel, poke, carve etc. Maybe saying I'm more of a purest is not the right word or I'd be more like Andrew Goldsworthy who creates art from the earth around him only for the pieces to dissolve by natures way. Guess I'm also sore about seeing this "art" created by this guy I knew many yrs ago via the computer. I said "meh!!!" to that drek then and still say it. There was some big award given to someone who 'created' (or a computer Ai program) this epic painting instead of to an actual artist with skill and that created an uproar in the art community a few years ago. I of course was on the side of the talented artists who lost to this phony baloney so-called "artist" who pushed a few buttons and had a bot make something instead of using any skill he may of had (ok, he didn't have any I'm assuming). To each their own in how they produce whatever.....I have seen many many comments complaining about articles on yahoo and the like about how it's so obvious a human didn't produce the writing themselves and yet they seemed to have ChatGPT or whatever other Ai bot they used not do the proper editing the article needed in order to make much sense. Those "journalists" are just lazy and like the computer 'artists' have no talent in writing whatsoever. But to end my diatribe on a positive note (and please don't think I'm flattering you, Cecil) I do enjoy your writing/articles/poetry very much and DO hear your voice in them, which is so crucial to me as a reader to hear that. Be well.
Talking about Andrew Goldsworthy whose work is great, I remember going to the only serious contemporary art gallery in Saint Louis Terry Moore Gallery back in the 1970's and seeing a show by Richard Long (maybe) at which was a pile of leaves on the floor of the gallery that he walked around in circles on until it had a circular trail. The other part of the exhibit was the audio recording of him doing the walk. Obviously it impressed me I still remember it. That fits into the root tongue stories.
Thanks for the correction on his last name. I was so passionate in writing that I stupidly didn't stop to get his correct last name. I have a few of his books and love his work so much.
No I am the one that misspelled Goldsworthy. you had it right. I'll correct my misspelling.
OK, thought I had a drug flashback as I went to get one of his books and saw the actual last name. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Guess my old brain can still be correct at times.