I have no theory as to why this was the case, but I believe it to be true. Once I became a full-time journalist, first the typewriter and then the computer became my tool for writing. My work still needed self-editing, but the nature of the craft was that only rarely did my writing require a personal touch. I have reason to believe that over the years the form and content of what I write became more understandable to the reader but less personal. It is the reader who one’s writing is to serve.

A few rookie reporters who I have had edited did not believe that. They felt – strongly – that that their prose was a marvellous creation that could not be tarnished by the rough, plebeian hands of an editor. Communication was not the goal of their writing. Rather, even a straightforward news article was an act of self-expression. A single word added, removed or altered provoked outbursts of raw emotion. I never knew what to do with these people who were so “creative.” Fortunately, I encountered only a few of them.

I have also sat on the other side of the writing desk. At one daily newspaper, I regularly received evening phone calls from a copy editor who had “some questions” about an article going in the morning paper. As soon as I picked up the phone and heard his voice, I knew trouble had arrived. No amount of explanation could help him understand what, to me, seemed to be the simplest points. Often, the article would be reduced to incoherency by the time it went to print. When I picked up the morning paper, I felt I would have to wear a bag over my head, muttering “I didn’t write that; I didn’t write that.”

So, the story does have two sides.

Now, we have the wonderful invention of artificial intelligence to sort out all incoherencies and misplaced modifiers. Except it doesn’t.

Recently, I bought a one-year subscription to Grammarly, an editing program which uses AI. Artificial Intelligence comes in two forms, generative and non-generative. I have been happily using the non-generative form, which suggests edits but leaves me in control. It has pointed out mistakes I too often make in my writing, and I am working to correct them before I turn on the AI editor. It has given me what I have long desired, a knowledgeable in-house editor who is available 24/7.

I also experimented with the generative AI. This is the type that employs ideas and writing styles dredged up from across the Internet, and published materials to give you the perfect piece of writing. The result is supposed to be writing with a touch of genius. 

What I found was quite different. Generative AI produces grammatically perfect writing which reads as smoothly as can be. However, the writing is utterly without character, and I don’t recognize it as my own. Opinions are expressed so blandly that the reader may not even know she is reading an opinion. Worse than that, the generative AI changed the meaning of what I wrote in several places. The product was a homogenized horror. 

It wasn’t as incomprehensible as what that newspaper editor did to my copy decades ago. In fact, a reader might even understand the products of AI. The writer might stand up tall with pride at his supposedly perfect writing. But I denounce that AI abomination. The more it is set loose on the population, the more our collective thought processes will turn to mush. We will increasingly bow to the almighty authority of the computer.

Only one God exists, the Trinity, the Loving Presence, the Unfathomable Mystery, Christ incarnate. God gave us the abilities to think, judge and choose. However, we need to exercise those abilities wisely, or they will rot and die. We honour God when we use our intelligence and will. Wisdom is God’s gift, and we will never come to wisdom if we allow computers to do our thinking.