No ratings yet.

Written text, be it literature, an email, a text message or a journal entry has been a form of expression for centuries. From the advent of written records we have been able to document traditions, lives and history for future generations to learn from. What used to be a skill that took time to develop is now readily available, expression of thoughts has been democratized – or has it?

The first wave of commercial AI was a revelation for the students of the world, never before had it been so easy to write so much with such little effort. A report about JFK? Only a few prompts away from an acceptable essay that, in all honesty, was pretty good. During this time of ChatGPT being the only model and students abusing it to save on time, I was adamant on relying on my own written ability. I have always been a fervent believer that I can write better than AI, that I can convey emotion through words a machine is only taught to emulate. For a long time I refrained from using AI, whenever I would hear my friends boast about using it I would scoff at them from my high horse. 

Times are a changin’.

As I took on more and more work  I started to see the utility of AI. Menial tasks that do not require much brain power are ideal to be augmented by AI. Writing up a partnership proposal, drafting a noticeboard message or anything similar became so easy. Easy enough that I could take on more and more responsibility and maintain the output. But it comes at a cost. Language that used to be the marker of high quality writing, someone who was well versed and well read instead became an indicator of “AI Content”. The em dash (–), a dead giveaway of AI written content today was originally a tool used in literature to denote a pause in writing. It was a marker of someone who knew advanced English and how to use it, now it is a sign of a lazy student or LinkedIn guru spamming his 15th post of the day.

I do not mean to sound elitist in my view of language, I mean to start a discussion on what we lose when we choose the easy way out. I am someone who adores writing, be it a letter or an essay. I want to show my thoughts in my own words – and I think you should too. I don’t expect people to reply to every single email they get in the Queen’s English, not when we have a technological revolution at our finger tips. What I want to see is people expressing themselves in their own words, not those enhanced by an LLM. What will historians think when they see a mountain of writing all without a soul?

So, what do you think, are we losing the emotion behind words or do I romanticize the idea of text?

No ratings yet.

The US Air Force (USAF) has relied on aerial refueling since the 1950s to project power across the globe. Since 1955 the KC-135 Stratotanker has been the backbone of the fleet, analog control and direct visual contract to guide the aircraft to the refueling boom. This analog system, though a remnant of the past, has proven to be safe and highly reliable.

The successor, Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus, was supposed to bring the analog system into the digital age. Instead of relying on a window through which the boom operators could see and guide the aircraft, the Pegasus introduced the Remote Vision System (RVS), digital cameras and screens built to allow all weather and nighttime operations. In theory, the precision and data collection benefits offered would allow for continuous improvement based on real time data. In practice, the digital cameras lacked depth perception, glare confused the sensors and the system was far less intuitive than its analog predecessor. What was supposed to be a leap forward was a financial disaster and operational nightmare (Insinna, 2021; Insinna, 2020).

Boeing’s failure showcases an important lesson, digitization need not guarantee improvement. Analog solutions, though archaic, are robust and proven. The Pegasus struggles echo a growing trend in technology where it is assumed a digital solution is always triumphant. From household appliances to military aircraft, not everything needs to be connected and digitized, improvement is necessary but going digital isn’t always the answer.

In my opinion the USAF should have used a test bed aircraft to see how each of these new system perform and implement a staggered rollout of the aircraft. Military procurement has suffered from trying to implement too much all at once, the Zumwalt Class of naval vessels being another example.

What do you guys think? Should going digital be the priority or should tried and tested methods be kept as they are?

Insinna, V. (2020, April 2). Done deal: Boeing will have to rip and replace KC-46 sensor and camera systems on its own dime. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/04/02/done-deal-boeing-will-have-to-rip-and-replace-kc-46-sensor-and-camera-systems-on-its-own-dime/

Insinna, V. (2021, February 24). Despite growing pains, the KC-46 will begin limited operations soon. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/24/despite-growing-pains-the-kc-46-will-begin-limited-operations-soon/