Hispanic Fanatic

My first novel, which has never been published, began with the following line:

This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself.

From there, the novel went on for about 200,000 words, mostly about how tortured I was in my twenties and how I felt feelings and had thoughts that none of you mere mortals could possibly understand.

Did I mention that this work has never been published?

Now, there is some good stuff in this ancient manuscript of mine, and I’ve pillaged some of the better sections for other novels and short stories over the years. Plus, I learned a lot about writing from this years-long exercise, so it wasn’t a total waste of time. 

And I still think that was a pretty good opening line. Hey, you know who agrees with me on that point? Artificial intelligence.

Yes, we have all seen articles and think pieces about how AI will foster creativity and allow artists to produce their best work faster, if only humans would get out of the way.

As a writer who has been known to dabble in creating web content, I have been inundated with emails from start-ups that promise their AI product will write my blog for me, redesign my website, and cook a four-course dinner for my wife and me.

These companies are basically saying, “Why write a post that expresses your thoughts on a topic, when you can have AI crank out derivative content in flat prose in mere seconds?”

Why indeed? You’ve got me there, tech bros!

To be clear, I am no Luddite. I’m intrigued with AI, especially its potential to eliminate repetitive tasks and speed up breakthroughs in science.

But I’m mystified why anyone would want a machine to write for you. Aren’t those your ideas? Why would you plaster your name on something that, by its very nature, is a hodgepodge compilation of other writers’ work?

Yes, I have posted the occasional AI-generated picture, like this beauty:

But I am always honest about the source of these images, and while I agree they can be cool, they are mere ornaments. I wouldn’t use one for, say, the cover of my next book (which is coming out later this year). For some things, you need the human touch.

Of course, maybe I am being narrow-minded, and I should buy into the hype that collaborating with AI is the next stage for writers.

So in the spirit of innovation, I asked an AI site for its reaction to the first sentence of my discarded novel. Here is the exchange:

Me — What is your reaction to the following sentence: “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself”

AI — The sentence “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself” effectively conveys the severity of an injury by comparing it to previous instances. It suggests that the person has a history of cutting themselves, but this particular incident is significantly more serious than any before. The use of “by far” emphasizes the magnitude of the injury, indicating that it is substantially worse. The sentence is concise and clear, immediately informing the reader about the gravity of the situation.

OK, that is very… analytical. It completely kills the vibe of the story, but it’s insightful. 

So I then asked AI to actively collaborate. Here is that exchange:

Me — Write the next sentence of a story that starts with this line: “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself.”

AI — “The blood oozed between his fingers as he clutched his arm, the sharp pain a stark reminder of his vulnerability in the vast, unforgiving wilderness.”

I gotta admit, that ain’t bad. It’s a bit adjective-heavy, and my novel took place in New York City, while according to AI, my character should have been lost in the vast, unforgiving wilderness. But maybe there’s some way to reconcile the setting. Perhaps the main character gets lost in Central Park.

In any case, I still don’t see how AI will help me write this blog. No machine can access my combination of Gen X, Latino, Midwestern upbringing, SoCal living, progressive, classic-rock and horror-movie aficionado. Then it would have to filter those influences and churn out a viewpoint that could pass for my sincerely held belief. It just can’t be done.

At least not yet.

Many historians believe that Ibn al-Haytham, who lived in present-day Iraq 3,000 years ago, was the world’s first scientist. He invented the pinhole camera, discovered the laws of refraction, and studied natural phenomena such as rainbows and eclipses. 

And if he lived today, he would be the subject of at least two dozen conspiracy theories and get death threats daily on Facebook.

You see, we Americans are not too fond of science. Oh, we take advantage of its benefits and breakthroughs — everything from the internal combustion engine to aspirin to the internet. But we don’t actually like the concept.

And our disdain for smart people in lab coats has gotten worse since the pandemic, which is not a surprise considering that millions of people still believe that both the virus and its vaccine are hoaxes or government plots.

According to a recent survey, the percentage of Americans who say science has a “mostly positive” effect on society is at 57%, down a staggering 16 percentage points since before the pandemic. And 8% of us think science has a “mostly negative” impact on society. I guess those people are Luddites, Amish, or mad scientists who have seen the error of their ways.

Now, as you can guess, trust in science is not the same across the political spectrum. Republicans have “less confidence in scientists and the benefits of science than Democrats.” In fact, fewer than half of Republicans (47%) say science has a mostly positive effect on society. That’s disturbing enough, but consider that back in the pre-pandemic days (if you can even remember them), about 70% of Republicans had a positive view of science.

That’s an enormous drop-off in such a short amount of time. It further illustrates that the Republican Party’s descent into ignorance has been rapid and decisive. These are people who once thought science was admirable, but they have jettisoned their logic and reason to fall into line behind their mad emperor, who despises people smarter than him.

It also shows how paranoia, fear, and distrust are the GOP’s favorite states of being. There is no such thing as a fringe theory in the modern Republican Party. For example, anti-vaxxers used to be pariahs. But now they are conservative leaders.

Now, this should end the debate over whether Republicans are anti-science. Yes, many liberals have made earnest pleas to respect different points of view and not insult conservatives. This is well-meaning nonsense.

Republicans are basically shouting, “We hate science.” There is no ambiguity here.

For example, the Texas Board of Education, which Republicans lead, recently rejected proposed science textbooks for schools because they contained “too much information about the climate crisis.”

In other words, there was too much science in the science textbooks.

The Republican-majority education board also objected to the textbooks because they “included teachings about evolution but not creationism.” As we know, conservatives “have long pushed textbook publishers to present pseudoscientific concepts like ‘intelligent design’ as equivalent to well-established scientific theories.”

But it still takes a startling amount of chutzpah to say, “If you don’t teach my religious hokum alongside your well-established scientific facts, I will ban your textbook, and I’ll tell you straight to your face that this was the main reason.”

Is that anti-science enough for you?

The disdain for science has filtered down through conservative leadership to the general populace. Currently, a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans, with evolution having no role at all.

Denying evolution is not an indicator of a well-educated society that respects science.

Speaking of evolution, the latest scientific tidbit that I have found fascinating is the work of ecologists who studied “the unequal distribution of birds and other species” throughout America. They found that the patterns of birds revealed “the impact of bigoted urban policies adopted decades ago.”

Science can reveal a lot to us. If we don’t kick it to the curb first.

About a year before the pandemic killed millions of people and crushed our souls, a team of scientists made an historic announcement. They had succeeded in capturing the first image of a black hole, about 55 million light years away. 

Of course, right-wingers ranted how it was all faked and that black holes don’t really exist and that the scientists were liars and…

OK, that didn’t actually happen. Aside from a few Christian conservatives who think astronomy is an affront to God, nobody got offended or conspiratorial about this scientific breakthrough. And the reason is simple. A picture of a black hole didn’t threaten anyone’s political viewpoint. Therefore, it was legitimate science.

To continue reading this post, please click here.