CIDM

Summer 2024

Accept no substitute?

Dawn Stevens, Comtech Services

If you’ve read many of my columns, you know that I put up an inordinate number of Christmas trees, with last year reaching a grand total of 50 individual trees. Obviously, they are not real, but artificial ones, ranging in height from 12 inches to 12 feet.They have many advantages over real trees:

  • They don’t need watering.
  • They are not a fire danger.
  • They last for more than one season.
  • They come with their own lights.
  • Their branches are evenly and predictably spaced, easily suitable for hanging ornaments.
  • They’re more economical in the long term, especially when you consider the number of trees I’m talking about.

However, they also have disadvantages:

  • They don’t smell of fresh evergreen.
  • They are not recyclable when they have reached the end of their lives.
  • Those pre-installed lights? If they stop working, you can’t just buy a new light strand.
  • They do not contribute to the environment while they are being produced, and in fact, the vast majority are shipped across the world from China, resulting in an increase of carbon emissions and resources to get into my hands.

These trees are not the only imitation greenery to find its way into my home. Regrettably, real houseplants don’t have much of a chance of survival under my care, so I now have a collection of Lego botanicals instead. And while my husband regularly brings me cut flowers, I also have arrangements of silk flowers scattered around the house that don’t fade and drop their petals everywhere.

Artificial things not only find their way into my decorations, but also into my diet. Read practically any label and you’ll find something artificial or imitation in the ingredient list. Honestly, I don’t often think about it—the small print doesn’t call to me to be aware of what I’m consuming. But there are some situations in which I make a conscious choice about whether artificial is acceptable or I want the real thing. For example, maple syrup. When I was young and operating on limited funds, boiled water, sugar, and artificial maple flavoring made a passable substitute to put on my pancakes. Occasionally, I might splurge and buy Log Cabin syrup, which although it’s also artificial, it’s a closer resemblance to the real thing and at one-tenth of the cost of real maple syrup, an acceptable compromise. Today, however, you will only find pure maple syrup in my fridge—my palette much prefers the real flavor and consistency, and my pocketbook allows the expenditure.

The truth is that artificialness is an unavoidable, and in many cases, welcome, part of our lives. TV shows entertain us with an imitation of real life. Clothing may be made of synthetic fibers to be more durable or easy to care for. Sometimes artificial is the only option for having any representation of the real thing. Rhinestones sparkle in our accessories, providing an affordable illusion of real gemstones. Artificial limbs and organs offer some people life opportunities that they would not otherwise have.

Nevertheless, artificial is often viewed in a negative light, used to describe something as fake, phony, or contrived. For example, you might offer an artificial smile when you hear a bad pun. Most people would say an artificial item is an inferior option to what it is replacing. Oscar Wilde wrote that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” but many forget that this sentence continues “that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” Imitation will never live up to the real thing, and is perhaps at best mediocre in comparison.

Perhaps it is the word being modified that determines the connotation of artificial. An artificial limb is generally thought of positively as providing something that otherwise the person would do without; while an artificial tone is interpreted negatively as covering up one’s real feelings. Still other uses might depend on the listener’s experience – artificial crab might be preferable to some diners and distasteful to others.

So when applied to the word “intelligence” what is the perception about the word “artificial”? Is it good, offering access to things we might not otherwise have? Is it bad, pretending to be something that it’s not? Does it provide a service that saves us the effort of going to a variety of sources ourselves? Is it close enough to the real thing to be acceptable?

To answer this question, I’m afraid I need to continue on my etymological musings to explore what is meant by intelligence. In particular, how does it differ from knowledge or wisdom? I remember growing up that my father used to talk about someone we knew as being very knowledgeable, but not very intelligent—in his opinion, she lacked common sense to apply her knowledge appropriately. This explanation given to an impressionable mind has stuck with me, and seems consistent with the definitions and explanations of the words from the dictionary:

  • Knowledge is simply information without interpretation– facts, figures, concepts, instructions.
  • Intelligence is the capability to apply knowledge – the ability to purposefully use information to guide us in our activities.
  • Wisdom adds a healthy dose of perspective and judgment. Just because logic says you should behave in a specific way, wisdom often tempers your actions, as you “read the room,” so to say.

So it seems to me that the word choice behind the term artificial intelligence is deliberate here. Artificial knowledge sounds like a promise for content that is untrue, while artificial wisdom seems pretentious and unachievable. Artificial intelligence is the middle ground, promising a source of knowledge, with an ability to apply that knowledge effectively. Yet, it is still artificial, a substitute for the presumably better option of direct access to an expert with similar knowledge and real experience on which to draw.

The question then is whether or not it is an acceptable substitute. The answer, as for all things artificial, is in the hands of the consumer. I choose artificial trees and plants because they are economical and easy. My goal is not to fool my guests into thinking I have some innate talent for growing things. It’s simply to add a splash of color here and there in a familiar form. They serve this purpose, without requiring attention or setting off my allergies. At the same time, I accept no substitute for real maple syrup. The discernible differences are important to me and worth the extra money. Some might have the opposite opinions, valuing the joy and tradition of chopping down their own Christmas tree, over the simplicity of instant lighting. Some may be allergic to real maple and enjoy the safer substitute.

In making these choices, however, the consumer knows that they are making a choice—that one option is indeed real and the other a substitute. And should there be any question, labels are there to clarify; the ingredients list for Log Cabin syrup clearly states it contains artificial flavoring. It is the right of the consumer to know that what they are getting is not real.

As we consider the use of artificial intelligence in our content strategy, this right seems critical to me – to make an informed decision about whether to trust the content, consumers must know that content was generated artificially and from what sources. In the specific situation for which they need guidance, are the sources used reputable and do they trust the machine to synthesize the knowledge and provide appropriate application?

What do you know about your audience? Are they the type of people who trust until given a reason not to? Or doubt until given enough reasons to trust? What are their critical factors that will determine if they embrace or reject the technology?

  • Is it a life or death question?
  • Does it give me a quicker answer?
  • Does it cost more?
  • …?

I believe this question is an important new factor to include in your audience analysis that forms the basis for your content strategy. What are you doing to gather that information?

 

P.S. The upcoming IDEAS conference (September 9-11) provides further insight on the subject of artificial intelligence from real experts actively involved in incorporating it into their content strategy. The agenda is now available. Take a look and register at ideas.infomanagementcenter.com.

 

About the Author:

Dawn Stevens is CIDM’s Director and President of Comtech Services. She has over 30 years of practical experience in virtually every role within a documentation and training department including project management, instructional design, writing, editing, and multimedia programming.