This democratisation of articulate communication represents a net positive for human discourse. More voices can now participate meaningfully in complex conversations. More ideas can be expressed clearly and persuasively. More people can contribute to the great ongoing human conversation about what matters most.
Preamble
Yes, another op-ed about AI. But no, TNPS is not becoming an AI journal. It’s just that a spate of important AI publishing developments have hit the headlines in the space of a few days. Note, if I had said “in quick succession“, someone would scream ChatGPT wrote that, which brings us to Florida State University.
Florida State University (FSU hereon) is the latest should-know-better outfit that has jumped on the ChatGPT clickbait headline bandwagon. ChatGPT is eating our language!
And yes, we expect that from the tabloid press. Not so much from the FSU. Shame on you, guys!
My first thought was not to give this drivel oxygen, but it is a university, and it is echoing a train of thought (or rather a train of not thinking) that is increasing popular with the Luddite Fringe, such that we best not allow this BS to flourish in a sea of passive acceptance.
A few days back Richard Charkin wrote (in the sweetest possible way) that I was “partially educated“. Not an insult, in fact. Richard has an OBE for services to being nice about publishing folk, and doesn’t do insults. Me, on the other hand… Absolutely gongless. King Charles somehow skipped me. What was he thinking of? Or maybe it was my comment about Prince Spoiled Brat in this article about Count Markus. Whatever, you know by now not to expect too many social courtesies from your truly! And there will certainly be none today when it comes to the crazy dudes at the FSU with their latest ChatGPT clickbait twaddle.
But to the point (there is a point, bear with me). Yes it’s true, my education was a little non-conformist. I had the best (or worst depending on your viewpoint) truancy in my schools. Kindergarten, primary and secondary. I skipped the college-uni-office routine in favour of having a life, and no regrets.
One thing I learned early was that schools held back more kids than they helped with their rote-memorisation one-size-fits-all “teaching”. That had no place in second half of the twentieth century, and today is an abomination.
Not least because it breeds resistance to innovation and change. It breeds fear of the new. And it fails to teach well-meaning folk – like the FSU team that put this latest BS study together – about causal relationships and the evolution of language.
Here’s the thing: The publishing world has always been quick to sound the alarm bells when technology threatens to disrupt the established order. From the printing press to the typewriter, from word processors to spell-check, each innovation has been met with protest and predictions of linguistic doom. The sky is forever falling in Publishing Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Now, artificial intelligence finds itself cast as the latest villain in this recurring drama, and to add to its established and proven beyond doubt roles as job stealer, content stealer, and devourer of babies and kittens, AI this week stands charged, trialed and convicted of, don’t laugh, “dumbing down” language and “narrowing our vocabulary.”
And it must be true, because someone who went to uni (and worse still, is still there!) says so. At least, that seems to be the rationale of the reportage, which is riding high on yet another ChatGPT is the devil’s spawn clickbait crusade.
The report is beyond worthless in academic terms, but sadly adds more fuel to the Luddite Fringe’s eternal fire. AI is destroying our language! Dumbing down! Narrowing our vocabulary! Only the Fantastic Four can save us!
This critique, however, fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of AI and the transformative potential it holds for human expression. In the words of the clickbait squad at the FSU, ChatGPT (do they even understand that there is more than one LLM out there?) is “steering the way we speak and narrowing our vocabulary“.
So, let me switch from righteous indignation in Preamble mode to analytical mode and take this nonsense apart bit by bit.
The Myth of Vocabulary Narrowing
Recent research (I use the word lightly) from Florida State University points to increased usage of words like, wait for it, “underscore,” “delve,” “meticulous” and “strategically” as evidence of AI’s homogenising influence. (Keep that list in mind as we go.)
As we all know, these words are so obscure that the average man or woman in the street will be quite unfamiliar with them, thus proving that the writer used AI.
But this analysis commits a fundamental error: it assumes correlation equals causation and ignores the broader linguistic context.
Consider the word “underscore” – allegedly a ChatGPT buzzword that has seen increased usage while its synonym “accentuate” has not. No, seriously, this is the level of the FSU case.
The problem being, this selective focus reveals more about research methodology than linguistic influence.
Here’s the thing. “Underscore” exists alongside numerous synonyms: emphasise, highlight, stress, punctuate, reinforce, amplify, bring into focus, draw attention to, make clear, etc. Why single out “accentuate” as the control? Perhaps because “underscore” was already the most accessible and widely understood option in everyday usage. And because “accentuate” is probably the least commonly used.
But the reality is that “underscore” functions as a verbal equivalent of “underline” – a concrete, visual metaphor that resonates with how we actually process information. It’s precisely the kind of clear, direct language that effective communication demands.
When AI systems strategically select such words, they’re not narrowing vocabulary; they’re delving into the most effective tools for clear expression. This meticulous attention to clarity should be celebrated, not condemned.
I mean, seriously, read that last paragraph again. The words in bold are apparently ChatGPT buzzwords. FFS! With apologies to Henry II, will no-one rid us of these turbulent Luddite priests?
The Democratisation Imperative
The current nonsense bares comparison to the Gutenberg press. Just as movable type democratised access to written knowledge, AI is democratising access to articulate expression. This represents a profound shift in who gets to participate in meaningful discourse.
And it goes beyond the debate about AI stealing our jobs and brings into question the intellectual divide that is uni-and non-uni educated folks, which is why the FSU folks are so agitated.
Previously, eloquent written communication was largely the province of those with extensive formal education, natural linguistic gifts, or professional training. Now, individuals who may struggle with grammar, vocabulary, or structure can effectively communicate complex ideas. The small business owner can craft compelling marketing copy. The non-native speaker can express nuanced thoughts without linguistic barriers. The person with dyslexia can produce polished professional documents.
The sky is falling!
But this isn’t “cheating” any more than using a calculator for complex mathematics or a GPS for navigation represents intellectual laziness. These are tools that amplify human capability and remove artificial barriers to achievement.
And we see this even here in the book publishing circles on LinkedIn. My own posts are better white-spaced, spell-checked and sub-titled thanks to AI.
But the real impact is with – no names – very clever industry folks with fantastic business ideas, insightful analyses, and public-speaking abilities I can only dream of, that now express themselves in writing far better than they used to. Folks we can see, if we look back at their posts a year or three ago, are not natural writers, or are dyslexic, or English is their second or third language (or in the case of Carlo Carrenho 🇪🇺, 77th or something – some people are born polyglots! – I wasn’t one of them), or are just shit at spelling.
As someone that make a living with the written word in the publishing sector, do I feel threatened? Insecure? Not at all! I think this is a perfect example of the benefits AI brings to the table for everyone.
The Primacy of Input Over Output
But the most crucial point in this debate concerns the relationship between human intention and AI execution. The idea that AI is creating lazy writers and lazy writing, is itself the result of lazy thinking, which is of course why the Luddite Fringe fall for it.
Here’s the thing: The value of any AI-generated text lies not in the particular words spewed forth, no matter how perfectly spelled and grammatically sound they might be, but in the quality, specificity, and insight of the human prompt that guided its creation.
When someone crafts (not writes, crafts) a detailed, thoughtful prompt they are engaging in sophisticated intellectual work. They must analyse their audience, clarify their arguments, identify key points, and structure their thinking coherently. The resulting text may be polished by AI (and full disclosure, AI will have polished the final draft of this text by when you read it – any typos etc will be me unable to resist a post-publish edit session), but its substance, direction, and meaning originate entirely from human endeavour and several coffees.
This dynamic rams home (or should I say underscores?) a fundamental truth: AI amplifies existing human capabilities rather than replacing them. A poorly conceived prompt yields mediocre results, regardless of the AI’s sophistication. Its classic GIGO. Garbage In. Garbage Out.
Conversely, a well-crafted prompt can produce genuinely insightful content that serves its intended purpose effectively.
Expanding Rather Than Contracting Language
Far from narrowing vocabulary, AI is actually expanding access to sophisticated language use. Consider how AI systems boast extensive training on diverse texts, from academic papers to creative literature, from technical manuals to poetry. They garner insights from this vast corpus and make sophisticated language patterns available to anyone. (And yes, the words in bold are again from the FSU’s ChatGPT buzzword list.)
When AI suggests the word “meticulous” instead of “careful,” it’s not imposing a preferred vocabulary – it’s offering users access to more precise expression. The person who might never have encountered “meticulous” in their daily life now has access to this more specific term. Over time, their own vocabulary naturally expands through exposure and usage.
This expansion happens organically, through what linguists call “uptake” – the natural process by which individuals absorb and integrate new language patterns. Rather than being “programmed” by AI, users are being exposed to richer linguistic possibilities.
The False Equivalence of Popular Culture
Critics who compare AI’s linguistic influence to television shows like “Friends” miss a crucial distinction. When popular culture introduces verbal tics like the overuse of “like,” it typically involves the adoption of filler words that add no semantic value. These patterns often spread through social mimicry rather than conscious choice.
It’s even reached these far-flung shores. Only yesterday in teacher training I had to address a trainee teacher who used the world “like” five times as a verbal comma where no pause was needed, and not once as a comparative or an indication of preference.
So Luddite Florida SU Fringe, go watch some telly!
AI-suggested language changes operate very differently from mass-absorption through television and like channels. And not just because TV means (and especially so in Friends era) millions of people simultaneously hearing the same thing.
When AI recommends “strategically” over “carefully,” it’s offering greater precision. When it suggests “delve” instead of “look,” it’s providing more vivid imagery. These aren’t meaningless verbal habits but purposeful enhancements to communicative effectiveness. And they are internalised by readers ad listeners not because of some form of televised mass hypnosis, but simply because the words are effective and impactful.
The Publishing Professional’s Dilemma
For we publishing professionals, the rise of AI-assisted writing presents both challenges and opportunities. The challenge lies in maintaining editorial standards while recognising that the tools of creation are evolving. The opportunity lies in embracing AI as a means of discovering and developing new voices that might otherwise remain unheard.
Publishers have always served as gatekeepers, filtering content for quality, relevance, and market appeal. This role becomes more important, not less, in an AI-enhanced world. The ability to recognise genuinely insightful content – regardless of whether it was polished by human or artificial intelligence – becomes the key differentiator.
Plus, of course, publishers who embrace AI tools for their own operations can operate more efficiently, focusing human creativity and judgment on higher-value activities while delegating routine tasks to artificial systems.
The Evolution Imperative
Language has always evolved in response to technological change. The printing press standardised spelling and grammar and even letter formation. The telegraph created new forms of concise communication. The telephone influenced conversational patterns. The internet spawned entirely new vocabularies and communication styles.
And that’s before we even begin to look at how technology changed the very act of writing. Novels, radio scripts, film scripts, TV plays, documentaries… But that’s for another op-ed.
The point to remember is, AI simply represents the next phase in this ongoing evolution. Rather than resisting this change, we should be asking how to harness it constructively. How can we ensure AI enhances rather than replaces human creativity. How can we maintain the richness and diversity of human expression while benefiting from AI’s capabilities.
Embracing the Future of Expression
To go full circle, the debate over AI’s influence on language ultimately reflects deeper anxieties about technological change and human agency. But the evidence suggests these fears are misplaced. AI is not dumbing down language or narrowing vocabulary – it’s making sophisticated expression accessible to everyone.
This democratisation of articulate communication represents a net positive for human discourse. More voices can now participate meaningfully in complex conversations. More ideas can be expressed clearly and persuasively. More people can contribute to the great ongoing human conversation about what matters most.
For publishing professionals, our choice is clear: embrace this transformation and help shape its development, or risk being left behind by those who recognise AI’s potential to amplify human creativity rather than diminish it. The future belongs not to those who resist change, but to those who strategically adapt to new realities while maintaining their commitment to quality, insight, and meaningful communication.
The Gutenberg moment is upon us once again. This time, instead of democratising access to written knowledge, we’re democratising access to eloquent expression itself. That’s not a threat to be feared – it’s an opportunity to be seized.
This post first appeared in the TNPS LinkedIn newsletter.
