Opinion / Chiara Rimella
Programming language
A few years ago, Pip Jamieson, founder of creative-industry network The Dots, told me that she had been voraciously reading books about the automation of work and what it might mean for the future of employment. At the time, I remember thinking, smugly, that I’d chosen the right career path for withstanding the rise of the robots. Surely writing, a subjective creative skill, would be one of the last crafts to fall to the machines?
It turns out that I was (at least partly) wrong. Recently, my social-media feeds have been flooded with targeted advertising for Jarvis, a copywriting tool powered by artificial intelligence. The idea is that by scanning pre-existing texts online, Jarvis will be able to automatically “generate content” out of simple prompts, penning everything from social-media posts to marketing blurbs and longer articles. Does the idea make me shudder because I feel threatened? Maybe. I should have known that I was becoming redundant when Gmail offered to finish my emails for me. But I simply cannot accept the idea of a pixelated, snot-nosed Jarvis pushing me off the keyboard.
Anyone who has written promotional sales copy will know that there are handy recurring sentence structures that work better than others. As a non-native English speaker, I have often approached writing less as an art and more of a craft that can be learnt. But it doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the artisan. At a time when most brands are keen on exuding “authenticity”, this seems like a counterproductive new service. And I bet young Jarvis is not the kind of assistant who appreciates the art of conversation either.