AI: The tool of liberation

Brenig Davies

I was prompted to write this after reading a Substack article, ‘What happens when you put Nation.Cymru opinion pieces through Pangram?’ by a PhD Researcher in the Department for International Politics at Aberystwyth University who analysed a sample of opinion pieces published by Nation.Cymru for signs of AI use. I surmise the purpose was to highlight shortcomings in Nation.Cymru’s editing.

What struck me, though, was what he didn’t discuss: the extent to which AI has helped so many contributors write opinion articles. In all fairness, though, the analysis was not designed to address this. The author did acknowledge the admirable ethos of Nation.Cymru’s openness.

I deduced that the researcher judged Nation.Cymru not to be an academic journal. It is an online publication featuring news, opinion, sport, and culture.

Opinion articles are not learned papers. They are written by people who express opinions, share experiences, and build arguments.

What intrigued me was that he announced that he would no longer contribute to Nation.Cymru until its editing improved. That struck me as odd when universities are there to share knowledge.

I use AI sparingly. I use it to check facts, statistics, and evidence. Sometimes I use it to test an argument or suggest a clearer way of expressing a point. I do not ask AI to write my opinions.

Some of my opinions may be tentative, even naïve. Some may be controversial. A few may even be ridiculous, though I hope only the satirical ones fall into that category. They are still my opinions.

AI suddenly became available at little cost. Opportunities for communicating thoughts that once seemed out of reach gradually became possible.

Leaving school at fifteen with no qualifications, then starting a motor mechanic apprenticeship, did not stop me from eventually gaining a first-class degree, a master’s degree, becoming a university teacher, and later a senior FE college manager. English is not on the City and Guilds motor mechanic apprenticeship curriculum. AI helps.

Experience

I have spent a long time involved in politics and public life. I have acquired experiences, memories, and prejudices. I can usually think of something to comment on in the public domain. My opinion article may be amended, refined, or sometimes binned. The challenge has always been sharing it in acceptable English.

Whatever its faults, AI has helped overcome my early education experience. Drafting articles for Nation.Cymru is liberating. Without AI help, I would not write for Nation.Cymru as often as I do.

The process would take longer, be more laborious, and be less enjoyable. With AI, I can focus on what I wish to say.

In this context, AI has not removed authenticity from my opinion articles. AI is not my ghostwriter. AI is my polite home tutor: friendly and supportive, suggesting things like, “Reduce sentence length,” and increasingly useful as it learns how to improve my awkward text. AI never reprimands.

There’s a lot of enthusiasm for AI detection programmes. I understand why people are concerned about its hidden use. I have run some of my own articles through different AI detectors, even this one, and received contradictory results. In this article, Pangram gave me 0% AI-generated – the same product used by the author; Grammarly AI, 8%; GPTZero, 2%. What a relief.

AI-detection products

Though Facebook now bombards me with advertisements for AI-detection products. The algorithms appear to have reached their own conclusions about my English deficit.

Education, social background, and a natural facility with words have played a leading role in determining whose voice was heard. Not everyone starts from the same place. That does not necessarily threaten standards implied by the Substack article.

It is worth mentioning a respondent’s remark on Substack about the analysis: “Excellent digging… depressing as the results are.” Good to see that myopia is alive and well in academia.

I’m particularly interested in who gets to take part in public debate. Plenty of people have experience, knowledge, and insight but lack the confidence or wherewithal to put their opinions in writing. This is a great loss to public debate. AI may help.

Experience has taught me that access to adult education, a second chance, signals a civil society, and one that opens opportunities for those who may wish to improve their English, in this instance. Over the years, I have learned as much from people with practical experience as I ever did from studying.

Public debate benefits from more voices. That seems a cause for optimism, not concern about AI.

---

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.