On AI-generated content
There is one thing that communication frameworks miss, and cannot capture fully. And that is the inherent messiness and flux, balance though dynamics of interacting parts/languages (I would take the liberty to make a parallel with heteroglossia). These movements, shifts in the way we see the world, when making sense of it, and thus co-creating it, are very important to content that moves and matters.
What is it that will differentiate you Ai-generated blog post from your competitor’s AI-generated post? The patterns? The models? The edge of the prompts?
Why not try and think thorugh your post? Why not brave away and get into the gist of things by talking to people in your company, not to models. What if we stop taking a taxi fro a walk in the park, and do it the peripatetic way.
For specific content, especially blog posts one, I choose to weave the “parameters” of time, internal dialogues, collisions, alignment of vocabularies, and the effort it takes to INTERNALLY understand what you are writing about.
It is only then that you reach the edge. The edge of not knowing.
Because with AI-generated content you reach the surface. The words. The statistically probable. If you are lucky, and you have smart engineers and Semantic Web. gente around you (like I do in Graphwise ) you will also get symbolics (ref. Neurosymbolic AI — Why, What, and How
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00813) and semantics.
Great.
But again, you will still miss the human. Only human part. The one thorugh which we connect. Truly connect.
In the case of blog posts strategy and putting your worldview out there, where you share on the Web what your business is about, its direction, its edge, AI-generated content won’t cut it. To me it will be like the content in the pre-Google Knowledge Graph era, where we (yes, I did that) stuffed keywords in pages. We didn’t have time to talk to people, SEO was about immitating knowldege.
We can do better.
With rich models we have in our minds and the beautiful process of dialogic communication.
In my work, I have done that intuitively. After years of talking to people, and when writing, trying to get to that one core thing, that i will present to the reader in a blog post, I still want to talk to people. It’s not easy. It’s not straightforward. It is messy. Just like it should be.
If you need a framework, maybe this one can be a guiding point (ref. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/lkcsb_research/article/6944/&path_info=Building_relationships_through_dialogic_communication_organizations_stakeholders_and_computer_mediated_communication.pdf)
Yet, I don’t think we need frameworks for dialogue. We just need more confidence in the fact that meaning is conversational, emergent, situation-specific and constant flux – and that’s a feature not a bug.
