I was out all day yesterday, so missed the WordPress prompt. Of all the total nonsense questions they usually ask, which seldom prompt me to write anything, I could have offered a plausible response to this one.
So thanks, Lou. Their question totally passed me by until I read your response this morning.
The question was:
What do you think is the future of AI?

In terms of blogging, I’m the same as Lou. I use it to generate images. I can’t really imagine that changing, ever, my goal is to have an enjoyable way of spending my time (which happens to be writing). I don’t want AI to crank out a hundred pages per day for me, for example, so what’s the point if it can? In other words, it’s the process which is important, not the end result. Everyone I know on this platform seems to be the same.
When I ask AI to generate things, the thing that infuriates me about it is that when I have an image in mind, I have to word the description so precisely before I can generate something which even approximates to my idea.
I think that shows the limitations of AI. Having to go to the nth degree before we get the output we want.
It also shows where the future job opportunities will be. They’ll be for people who are proficient in communicating with AI tools. You know, to get the desired output first time.
Which, really, is the same challenge that there has always been. For years, I could make a computer do something useful, because I happened to know specific programming languages that a computer, ultimately, could understand. I reckon this’ll be the same, except in the future, I’ll be speaking in English, and having to use certain words, rather than having to learn a whole new language.
So in that respect, I don’t think the problem has particularly changed with AI. Sure, the tools have changed, but that’s just evolution. The actual problem – communicating with a machine so it does something useful – is the same.
Where I do find AI incredibly useful, though, is when I write. One of the tricks is to make our stories as plausible as possible, right? And in that regard, there are all sorts of tiny facts that we don’t know, that we have to go and research, in order to make a story plausible? AI can now make that research instantaneous.
For that reason, I use my AI program (Copilot) pretty much every day. Examples of recent questions to it are:
- What would army slang be for a Field Marshal? Because I have no knowledge of army life, and one of the characters in my current novel is a senior officer. How would he refer to his boss? In fact, the AI said there isn’t a more specific term, so I just ended up referring to him as “the top dog”.
- What were the winning lottery numbers on a specific date, 25 years ago? Because my novel is set 25 years ago, and I’m trying to be vaguely realistic.
- Who won the UK Golf Open in 2002, and what were the starting odds? Same reason. If you’re interested, it was Ernie Els and I think his starting odds were about 20-1. I remember thinking that those were quite long odds, since he was also described as “one of the favourites”, but apparently that’s typical in golf. I guess there are just so many people in every tournament that nobody is ever a sure thing.
- Can you freeze cheese? Nothing to do with the novel, but the kitchen is a foreign land to me! And, of course you bloody can 🤣.
- and so on.
But do you see, they’re all just tiny questions which you might bounce off an assistant, say. Or you might find out in a library. None of this is particularly “intelligence”, it’s just time-saving to get the answer immediately.
So I pretty much see the main benefit of AI as being my PA.
And I guess the big danger of AI is therefore relying on it too much. For example, if we had a human PA, we might dismissively say, “can you arrange my trip to Melbourne, please?”
Could we really say that to something AI? I mean, in theory, yes. It could make a plan. But there are so many smaller tasks in that instruction – book a taxi to get to the airport, book a flight, cater for delays going through immigration, book a hotel at the other side, etc. – that the human in me knows that there are a thousand little things that could go wrong, where we might have to improvise on the spot. So I’m kinda wondering how much the initial plan would resemble the actual events.

Very right, I agree with you Pete
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m the same and you stated it just right. I’ve made a couple of AI pictures and it’s fun, but details it wants so many details! I ask all kinds of silly questions, and do research for answers. A handy and fast assistant. Now, I can see it being used for more, and also unsavory things by some people, which is unfortunate. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s true. I’ve always been hesitant about what data I give to sites, but you never know. And AI would be brilliant at allowing bad actors to piece all that data together.
LikeLike
Yes, that sure could happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Other than when Google responds to a basic search with an AI-generated response, I have yet to use any AI program for anything. Holding off on it for as long as I can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the problem, though. I think a lot of the time, we don’t know. I know my speaker uses Gemini, and if I do a web search on DuckDuckGo, it proudly announces “AI results” even though there’s nothing AI about it. I think it’ll be difficult to tell the difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally understand about the images. It’s so frustrating that it takes about ninety attempts to create something remotely similar to what you want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. There’s a role for humans yet 🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hallelujah! For now…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I use AI mostly like I would use an assistant. As far as the quality of the output is concerned, a lot depends on the quality of the initial prompt. I spend some time thinking about what I expect AI to produce in order to make the initial prompt as concise as possible. And the I obviously do some refining… tools like Anthropic’s CoWork allow to give the AI more complex tasks involving several steps. Some of my colleagues work this very successfully for their work. As always, obviously, the more precise you define the task the better the result. But that also applies to any task you would gehandelte over to a human assistant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we had a human assistant, though, we might reasonably expect them to learn details over time. For example, if we said “can you get me a coffee, please?”, we would expect an assistant, sooner or later, to understand that we mean “a flat white with two sugars and a shot of caramel syrup” or somesuch. I wonder if we’ll ever get that far with AI? Okay, that’s a trivial example, but it illustrates how we might use a general word to indicate something far more specific, and far more bespoke.
Incidentally, I “upgraded” Copilot last week, and it seems to have taken a lot of stuff out. Privacy-related. For example, I used to say “what’s the weather forecast today?”, and it would just tell me. Because it had learned things about me. Now, it asks me where I live. As I say, I can understand that from a privacy perspective but it makes the service harder to use, having to specify my location every time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my own experience with AI it does exactly that: It learns from my previous interactions with it, even if I start a new chat. Just as a human assistant would. Your experience with Copilot ‘losing’ previous knowledge about yourself could potentially be related to your privacy settings, but then again, in your upgraded version, I would expect it to learn again about yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I’m just using it again now and it seems to have just forgotten things during the upgrade rather than desupported them.
LikeLiked by 1 person