Eleven Articles on AI That Don’t Suck

I don’t know if people read articles that consist mostly of links to other articles. Based on the click counts for my last article of this sort, I would say not so much.

But I do like articles of that sort myself — and that’s why I like to send one out every so often, just in case there are people out there who are weird like me.

The big question, then, is are you weird like me? Is there enough overlap between your kind of weirdness and mine to justify your reading this article?

To help you answer that question, I will give you some idea of what I like and what I don’t like in an AI article.

It’s easier to describe what I don’t like, or what I am unlikely to read. I am unlikely to read, and certainly will not be recommending, anything that can be boiled down to one of these sentences:

· “I’m an academic and I don’t like Elon Musk, or tech bros, or businessmen, or commerce — so I refuse to use AI.”

· “Here’s how you can use AI to triple your productivity and move more product.”

· “I just made [insert large amount of currency] using this one simple trick.”

· “I’m a coder and I write for other coders, using a language normal human beings can’t understand.”

Here are some things I am interested in:

· AI as a dialogue partner for human beings (as opposed to a replacement)

· Language

· Poetry

· Plays

· Fiction

· Philosophy

· Ideas

· Humor

So, with those preliminaries out of the way, here are eleven articles on AI that, in my humble opinion, don’t suck:

“Molière Ex Machina: AI used to create ‘new work’ by beloved French playwright,” by Kim Wilsher in The Guardian. This newspaper article describes an interesting example of humans using AI collaboratively, to create new works inspired by old ones, instead of just using it to tap out so we can watch Kardashian videos and eat Doritos.

A scene from the AI-generated “Virtual Moliere” play (taken from the Wilsher article)

“I asked AI to explain my mother to me. It translated her worldview,” by Ariel Meadow Stallings in The Guardian. Anything that facilitates understanding between parents and children can’t be all bad, can it?

“Scientists Discover AI can make humans more creative,” on Science Daily. Before you start a denouncing-and-deplatforming campaign against me, notice the word “can.” Not “does.” “Can.” In my opinion we need to stop talking about “what AI does to your brain.” It can do a lot of different things to your brain. As Eric Clapton says, “it’s in the way that you use it.”

“AI breakthrough cuts energy use by 100x while boosting accuracy,” on Science Daily. Listen: my training is in English literature. I have no idea whether this new tech will actually work out or not. But here’s an idea: maybe we should let the scientists have a year or two to work on the energy use problem before we cancel one of the most astonishing scientific breakthroughs in human history.

“This new chip survives 1300°F (700°C) and could change AI forever,” on Science Daily. Again, I don’t have the science chops to say anything authoritative about this. It’s interesting, though. Maybe in the not-too-distant future we will be able to put data centers out in the Mojave and save a bundle on air conditioning.

“Something Big is Happening,” by Matt Shumer on X. It’s sort of absurd for me to recommend this article because it went viral a few weeks ago and I believe about half a million people have already read it. What difference will ten or fifteen more click-throughs from this post make? Not much — but it’s well worth the click if you haven’t clicked already.

“The Humanities are About to be Automated,” by Yascha Mounk, on his website. I don’t care for the title, but it’s an interesting article. This article and the one that follows look at the impact AI is likely to have on academics, many of whom seem to have adopted either a “total refusal” stance or a “head in the sand” approach.

“Academics Need to Wake Up on AI,” by Alexander Kustov on the “Popular by Design” website. This piece pairs nicely with Mounk’s article above. Both authors have a message for academics that academics don’t want to hear. The subtitle of this one is “Ten theses for folks who haven’t noticed the ground shifting under their feet.” Most people probably don’t pay much attention to the image at the top of Kustov’s post, but it’s a kind of visual summary of what the author is saying.

(Image from Alexander Kustov’s website)

“Generative AI in Higher Education” by Michael Buehler on Medium (open to non-subscribers). I link to a single post, but this is a weekly news round-up. Buehler looks for recent publications on AI and education. Then he provides summaries and links, and even archival pdfs, in case the original website eventually goes on the fritz. He’s much more catholic (small c) and inclusive than I am trying to be here. He tells you what’s out there, every week. I just tell you what’s out there that I like, every once in a while.

“Pointwise Mutual Information,” by Craig Trim on Medium (open to non-subscribers). Don’t be put off by the unsexy title. The author has a whole series of articles in which he explains key concepts in text-based computing, word frequency research, linguistics, LLMs, etc. He writes with deep understanding and yet manages to achieve very high readability. He has amazing graphics and concept demonstrations. And, on top of everything else, he has found a way to get some bot to generate really stylish AI-created art. I’m linking to this one post, but I recommend all of his pieces.

“The First World 3 Mind: Why LLMs Think The Way They Do,” by Hammond Johns, on Medium (open to non-subscribers). This one actually links to a piece of mine, but, in spite of that, it’s a really good piece. Johns writes on AI. He thinks carefully and writes philosophically. He stays with the ideas and teases out the ramifications.