2 November 2025

Is AI going to make us more honest with each other - and ourselves?

| By Zoe Cartwright
Join the conversation
25
organic hand with a pencil writing on a pad next to an AI hand writing on a tablet

Zoe Cartwright loves a good work whinge – who doesn’t? But an experiment with ChatGPT made her reassess her perspective. Photo: Google Gemini – AI Generated.

As an experiment this week, my editor whacked a few prompts into ChatGPT to see if it could write my weekly column.

In less than five minutes it spat out 500 words on the dangers of the Aldi special aisle.

“Hey,” my editor said, “this is pretty good.”

Dear reader, it was pretty good – and produced work much faster (with fewer typos) than anything I could churn out.

But it wasn’t real. ChatGPT hadn’t experienced the siren song of the specials aisle, and it never would.

READ ALSO Are you a slave to the scroll? Or have you transcended socials?

There was no real person out there with the precise perspective and opinions the AI espoused.

“So what,” you might think, “Harry Potter isn’t real either.”

While this is true, it misses something fundamental to the act of making anything at all.

Whether you write fiction or non-fiction (or silly little columns), make art or build houses, some part of yourself will leak into your work.

No matter how hard you try to edit it out, every time you create something you put a small piece of yourself out into the universe.

We’re social creatures who know ourselves, our world, and our place in it through the reflections we see from other people, so I think it’s pretty dang consequential if the stories and art we begin to consume are made by … no one at all.

Here’s another thing.

I read this week that AI can now research, write, assess and grade academic papers itself, potentially putting thousands of academics out of their jobs – or making them a million miles more efficient.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people who make a career out of academia might actually, on some level, enjoy doing those things.

I like to complain about having no good ideas, or too many deadlines, and getting myself to do the actual writing part of my job is like pulling teeth from a donkey, but deep down, secretly, I do enjoy it.

In the same way that a chippie feels a sense of accomplishment when he drives past a house he’s built, when someone talks about an article I wrote, I’m chuffed.

READ ALSO Here’s how you can feel awe-inspired from your own couch this weekend

We are designed to make things and to interact with the things other people make.

Technology that helps us make things better or more easily, or that removes unnecessary labour (I’m looking lovingly at my washing machine) is a wonderful gift.

Technology that robs us of the joy (and frustration) of creating and connecting seems like something a little more ominous.

If we’re going to push back against it, maybe we need to admit to ourselves – and the people around us – that there are parts of our jobs we actually quite like doing ourselves.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

a creation can’t rise higher than its creator, but must always be less than it.
Therefore, because the technocrats are horribly dishonest with themselves and others, AI will be even worse.
A lot of whatever AI is good at, then, means a re-evaluation of the value of those things, if only to knock them down a peg or two

Making as little sense as ever.

“a creation can’t rise higher than its creator”, this made laugh though, seems some Christians are genuinely worried that AI will surpass that creator beliefs….lol.

That opening clause by Vasily M is so shot through with basic fallacies, both definitional and begging the question, that it could be an introductory exercise for a school class.

go on, then, Axon

I had an ironic response but I will offer you part of an answer, Vasily M, if Region permits.

Define each of the following words meaningfully in the context of your post: creation, rise, higher, creator. Analyse extent of general acceptance or evidence for your chosen definitions.
In what respect does an inanimate invention “rise”, and “higher” than what?
You beg the question of creator, without which belief you would not attempt your usual little word salads. Otherwise I could point to a nearby building, definitely higher than its creators, but Vasily prefers question-begging over evidence.

The following is adapted from some work by the philosopher Graham Oppy:
– There is no evidence for entities which are causally related to things hereabouts but not spatially related to things hereabouts (no souls, spooks, entelechies or gods).
– None of the kinds of entities mentioned has managed to show value as a theoretical construct.
– Thus there is no sufficiently good reason for believing in such entities.

Axon, if there’s no intelligence behind the world, yet humans are intelligent and intelligence is more intelligent than no-intelligence, then humans should be absolutely smarter than the world and should by now have solved everything it decided was a problem, including all illness and even death.

So to sum up this nonsensical word salad Vasily, you’re putting 2 and 2 together and getting yellow.

Vasily M, that is a version of St Anselm, bombed off by the Benedictine monk Gaunilo in the 11th Century because it can be used to “create” practically anything. More pithily, imagining something does not instantiate it.

Seano sums it up well.

It St Anselm’s nothing.
So, instead of just making baseless assertions, beat my logic.

I just did.

You did not notice.

Too bad. You should learn your subject.

No, you didn’t.

Anselm’s argument is where he defines God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. He argued that a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind; therefore, since God is the greatest possible being, God must exist in both the mind and reality to be truly the greatest.

Anyone can see that this is nothing like my argument, which I replicate here for convenience:

“If there’s no intelligence behind the world, yet humans are intelligent and intelligence is more intelligent than no-intelligence, then humans should be absolutely smarter than the world and should by now have solved everything it decided was a problem, including all illness and even death.”

One of the greatest differences between Anselm’s argument and my argument – apart from the bleeding obvious – is that his can be refuted whereas mine can’t, as evidenced partly by your inability to do so

It is directly analogous, except for the fact your argument is more ridiculous.

The unadmitted Anselmic element is the attempt to instantiate more X than X or else X would be more X. That is the gist of your argument. Substitute “yellow” or “space penguin” for “intelligent” and you will make exactly as much sense (none) as you did in the first place.

For the latter part of your writing, humans are not the only intelligent species, just more so than most of the others in a wholly relative fashion, just like some other animals are faster or stronger or have more pointy teeth and others do not, so why are you not arguing that intelligent cockatoos should have solved the world’s problems and if they haven’t therefore god? Weird.

nice try, but you are wrong.

Your basic, atheistic premise is that there is no intelligence behind the world.

Intelligence is more intelligent than no intelligence.

Humans are intelligent and should therefore be smarter than the world.

Humans haven’t solved the problems they’ve identified in the world, therefore there must be a greater intelligence behind the world.

This is all perfectly logical so far, and is supported with much observable evidence, such as somebody being able to fix or not fix a broken computer depending on they’re intelligence level in relation to the manufacturer.

And yet you claim animals are intelligent, too.
This is at least debatable, and when it’s tested alongside the fact that they indeed haven’t solved the world’s problems, then, according to logic and much observable evidence, they simply could not have the intelligence you have ascribed to them – this “intelligence” only seeming so from a mistaken perspective – otherwise they simply WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOLVED THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS – more intelligence than no intelligence doesn’t operate in any other way.

An addition to what I said at the end about intelligent animals:

If there really is no intelligence behind the world, then humans and animals have no intelligence either, for not being smarter than the no-intelligence world. This is logical and supported with observable evidence. But it would contradict our attempts to think now.

However, if there is a greater intelligence behind the world, then animals could perhaps have some intelligence too, albeit less than humans. But whatever the case, there must be a greater intelligence behind the world than both humans and animals, otherwise humans and animals would have to be smarter than the world.

It couldn’t be more simple, logical and supported with observable evidence than that.

I opened above by saying you were begging the question:
“Your basic, atheistic premise is that there is no intelligence behind the world”
and inversely there is the complete bingo card.

“Humans are intelligent and should therefore be smarter than the world.”
Why? What does it mean to imply the world could be [less] smart? Category error.

“Intelligence is more intelligent than no intelligence.”
or
Hearing is more hearing than no hearing.
Toenails are longer than no toenails.
Blue is bluer than no blue.

Wacky do.

While I am sorry to hear of your unfamiliarity with research in animal intelligence, what is intelligence other than an adaptive benefit? I know your answer, a fresh sortie into question-begging. You need a course in basic logical fallacies.

This conversation will not go anywhere because your premise is fixed whereas despite a mundanely religious upbringing mine was to test the theory and evidence, from which the conclusion was clear.

It has been nice talking to you. You can take these away: Why do you think evolution has stopped?** Why should evolution be beneficial to homo sapiens? Sneak preview: it hasn’t and no cause. That’s life, whether for you or moss on a rock.

** maybe you think it never started.

You’re just obfuscating. But at the end of the day, you’re trying to argue that intelligence wouldn’t be completely more intelligent than no intelligence and couldn’t completely out smart it, if it wished.

This is untenable.

What was obfuscated? Are you perturbed that your argument goes nowhere? Ex falso quodlibet.

At the end of the day you’re trying to argue that spangled drongoes would be completely more spangled drongo than no spangled drongo, which leads nowhere but to the Church of the Spangled Drongo (credit cards accepted).

That one appendix can be completely more infected than no appendix does not instantiate a perfectly infected appendix beyond all other infected appendixes (not appendices).

You are doing St Anselm again — there are variants, yours being one. Hint: why should any perfect drongo, whale or roll-top desk exist? How does imagining it should, mean it does? This is untenable.

You have not answered what is special about intelligence such that it must be (as you imply) absolute. You cannot, without re-entering the same circular process of assuming your conclusion in your premise (another way of saying begging the question).

Although I still think you could be clearer, I can see where I’d need to take the conversation next, and could even ask you to do a little justifying of your own. And yet because I’m not as skilled at that perspective as what others are, I’ll have to leave the conversation there.

Thanks for the exchange. I think there was some good to it.

In case of any slight misinterpretation, that was meant to be a signoff in the same courteous vein as you wrote.

Gregg Heldon6:47 am 03 Nov 25

There is nothing wrong with the “weird arse” aisle in Aldi. It’s why you go to Aldi.

LOL So true. But I guess that reveals why we shouldn’t rely on AI for these things. That article needed to by typed by someone who has experienced shopping at Aldi.

But aren’t the AI companies trying to sell to your boss, not you? On the premise that they can cut costs by cutting staff? Granted the AI will produce low quality work, but is that what some bosses may settle for?

True. This reminds me when I learnt about the Industrial Revolution as a child, I thought ‘but aren’t machines created to help humanity work, not replace us?’ That’s how it should be, technology should be created to help us not replace us. Sadly, I’m the only one who thinks this way….

Karl, I very much appreciate machines, or technology and engineering in general, explicitly replacing certain human effort, as well as the myriad of machines which merely assist us. Whether or how AI is useful is yet to be seen, and in that respect I do not disagree with Rob.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.