Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Two AI problems are degrading Indiana’s public square: AI slop and its opposite, AI underuse. Both need calling out.
AI slop is the more offensive of the two. It’s everywhere — across government and elected officials’ accounts, in businesses’ social media and in some publications.
The canned constructions, the overused sentence rhythms, the vocabulary strained like a high schooler’s essay — all of this ChatGPT gobbledygook is flattening what people mean and dulling their point.
Nowadays, I — probably like you, too — often read something and wonder, “Did any critical thought go into this?” Once you notice it, you can’t unsee it. It’s maddening.
At the same time, AI underuse is also limiting public discourse. Now that I know what AI can do as a writing assistant, I often come across writing that clearly needed a helping hand.
The prose meanders. The main ideas aren’t quite clear. The counterarguments weren’t anticipated. The piece deserved a second pair of eyes, like well-prompted ChatGPT, to flag even the basic weak spots.
These two AI-writing problems matter because, if Indiana is to cut through its problems and make progress in a rapidly changing world, precise expression and clear thinking are essential—especially in the public square, where people are trying to change hearts and minds.
To bring this into focus, let’s look at the high-stakes topic that IBJ’s Forefront explored last month: Indiana’s housing costs.
Let’s imagine the pieces were largely AI-generated; they’d be contrived generalities, hollow talking points, substance-less filler. You couldn’t get close to the real tensions.
The opposite would be just as bad. Imagine pieces that were not the best written (look, writing is hard). They might be getting at something important, but because of the prose, you just can’t pinpoint exactly what.
In the end, what’s the cost? Because of suboptimal communication, the state Legislature ends up reshaping housing policy for the whole state without being able to fully consider the trade-offs.
The good news is, this problem has a remedy, and others are already working it out.
Across universities, high school classrooms and even newsrooms, people are developing best practices for keeping AI in its proper lane. One of the central findings: Separate the stages of creation — generating ideas, researching, drafting, revising, editing — and use AI to support those functions.
For me, I’ve been experimenting with integrating AI into my columns. These days, I use AI to poke around and supplement my research. Once I’ve read enough, I pull out a piece of paper and pour out my own thoughts first, in sentences, fragments, sometimes little side outlines. Then I type up a clean draft. Only when all my thoughts are on the page do I turn to Claude or ChatGPT or Grok as editor, sounding board or second brain.
We’re clearly in a new reality, and AI’s implications for the public discourse are still unfolding. It’s incumbent on all who write, opine and speak publicly to use the tool, and use it correctly.
Done right, AI will sharpen our collective mind and help us solve problems faster. Done wrong, it will only cloud our judgment and slow our ability to act.•
__________
Gemelas is chief operating officer at Climate Solutions Fund, outstanding fellow of Mitch Daniels Leadership Foundation and a proud Greek-American. Send comments to [email protected].
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.