| Letter from the Editor: My Serenity Translator | | Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the sketch comedy show "Key and Peele"; namely, a recurring character named Luther.
For those unfamiliar with the show, Luther was an "anger translator": a reliable sidekick who would translate someone's diplomatic, moving words into the underlying – and sometimes angry – message.
Why this flashback? Because I recently realized that, for me, ChatGPT is the opposite of an anger translator; instead, if I'm feeling a little too feisty, I use it to soften my sentiment a bit. So this week, I officially dubbed it, "My Serenity Translator."
It's an interesting revelation amid hearing that some of my reporters have been trolled with comments like, "How does it feel to be writing about the technology that's going to replace you?" First of all: Rude. Second: Stop. It doesn't have to be that way.
I'll let you in on something: My Serenity Translator makes me borderline hopeful for how humans and generative AI can – gasp! – co-exist. Sure, the additional context of multiple platforms coming together to form partnerships and sign pledges dedicated to responsible AI is helpful, but not without casting a modicum (or more) of doubt. But the anecdotes of how people use tools like ChatGPT to improve their work, not replace it, encourage me.
Let's be clear that I am not talking about plagiarism. AI wrote no part of this piece, nor do I intend to have it do so in the future – and I do not condone anyone else using it for that purpose, either.
But I will admit that generative AI tools help me, and not just as a Serenity Translator, but as a thesaurus, a librarian, and a thought-starter, to name a few. And as it turns out, at least one significant study shows that this, more often than not, is the case.
The study's "authors," SEJ's Senior News Writer Matt Southern recently reported, "say their results suggest that AI tools like ChatGPT are more likely to augment human professionals rather than replace them."
So, that's it? We all live happily ever after? I wish.
Instead, I suggest that we all approach with cautious optimism. Studies and stories like those above are promising, but open doors to more work ahead – much of which falls on us, the people who have come to know it as a form of assistive technology. Even now, my Serenity Translator/reference librarian needs me to fact-check it. Okay, so maybe we're a team. I'll pinch-hit when you can't, ChatGPT.
That's my circuitous way of revisiting the original point of AI and humans coexist, especially at work. Here at SEJ, for instance, we recently formed a staff-led AI committee to cultivate ideas, safeguards, best practices, and systems for working with this technology – not against it. Is this the work bestie we've all been waiting for? Maybe. But like any good mentor, we must be mindful and present to ensure its success.
What does that look like? To start, I encourage other organizations to form their own AI committees, even if, at first, it's a committee of one. How do these tools and platforms help you? How are they collaborative? Is it scalable? If so, how do you design it for growth?
Admittedly, I can't answer those questions in full yet; I'm not sure anyone precisely can. But if you have, I not only applaud you, but invite you to what I hope will be an ever-expanding knowledge-share, where we learn to work alongside (instead of against) AI technology and each other – in a way that makes it not just benign, but an added, human-adjacent value.
Until next time, I am humanly yours,
AZW | | Amanda is the Editor-in-Chief of SEJ. A writer, editor, marketer, and "Golden Girls" superfan, she joined SEJ from HubSpot, where she ran the company's News & Trends program. Her byline has appeared in Thrillist, EcoSalon, and Fast Company. Find more of her work at amandazw.com. | | | | | |
