In my 3 years of Active Guard Reserve Duty at 98th Division Training HQ in Rochester NY, I was asked to write "White papers" on policy items, that 1st Army could use (after revision). These were to be one page about "Strength Management", at 8th grade reading level.
Yep, the dumbing down to low grade reading levels is a real thing. Unfortunately. I took classes purporting to teach just that while I worked at the Legislature.
In the past, I authored several technical books. Topics focused on computer hardware and software configuration, computer networks, and software development. AI did not exist at that time. I dealt with copy editors and technical editors, along with technical reviewers.
I argued consistently with copy editors because they understood US English, but not technology. Their constant need to massage wording to fit the grammatical rules collided with the jargon and terminology used in the computing industry.
I argued consistently with technical editors who wanted to rewrite my phrasing because it was somehow different than how they would "portray" it. I had to constantly remind them that I was the author of the book and it needed to have my "signature" on it. That meant, my writing style. I even penned a chapter in a book on connecting Windows XP to Linux and vice versa. The main author of the book, in his feedback, noted that the content did not "sound like him". Well DUH!
As for AI, I have been teaching AI concepts since 2020. It started with what Microsoft called Cognitive Services. I worked at Microsoft back then. I was asked to author a module for a course that included the ability to make a conversation bot and have it perform some unique AI functionality. I chose to write about using a chat bot where a politician or a product manager at a company, could ask the bot how the world of Twitter perceived them or their product. It let them enter terms, then searched Twitter for related hash tags, returned the tweets from the platform,, and finally used sentiment analysis to display a neat little table showing the sentiment that people felt. This was the start of some truly interesting things with AI.
As I began teaching generative AI, which is the most common usage today among the general public, I found myself having to spend time helping the students understand the concepts and limitations of generative AI. The feedback you got, is a prime example of where AI still needs work.
We must remember that whatever LLM or SLM that the AI is using, is limited by the data it was trained on. The critical piece to understand is that the AI model is only able to generate a response based on the data it was trained on. This data could be old, it might not match your specific topic domain, and it can hallucinate.
I give students an example. I open Microsoft Word and use Copilot. This is the first prompt I give it.
"Please draft a cover letter for me. I am applying to Boeing for a job posting for an aerospace engineer. Use my 10 year's of experience at Bombardier as an aerospace engineer."
That is all I give it.
What is returned, starts out ok. Basically stating simple things like the role I am applying for and that I believe my tenure at Bombardier positions me well for this role.
Then, it goes off the rails. It begins to state things like:
"In my tenure at Bombardier, I gained valuable experience in composite wing design.......
WTH? Where did that come from?
It came from a mathematical algorithm that is designed to find relationships between words. It found, in its training data, references of what an aerospace engineer might do. Sure, some design wings, most, likely do not.
It's almost like giving a toddler three pictures of a bicycle and expecting them to be able to pick out bicycles from any other picture, or differentiate bicycles from tricycles and motorcycles.
My students then ask me. "Ok, so what do you use generative AI for?"
I simply use it as a thought generator. If I am stuck on coming up with an idea, I ask it to give me suggestions. It can spark my creativity.
But more importantly, if I need it for serious stuff, like work related activities, I use the concept of grounding. I provide it with relevant information that has factual accuracies related to the topic at hand. In my cover letter example, I use an actual resume for someone who was an aerospace engineer. I give the AI access to the document and tell it to use that as a reference for my experience. The output is considerably better.
What users fail to understand, when it comes to using generative AI, or AI in general, is a simple concept. Trust, but verify. I think that "consulting company" just passed along some output without any real scrutiny behind it.
And there I go again, writing a novel. Sorry.......
>>>I think that "consulting company" just passed along some output without any real >>>scrutiny behind it.
I think this is exactly right, it is fairly obvious that no one actually looked the report over before sending it to me. Had they done so the error about where the essay was published would have surely been caught.
That said, I did find the report to be quite interesting. The conclusions that it got right were surely correct, and the advice given would make the piece stronger in a way, but I'd argue weaker in another, really valuable way.
As for the editors...
I suppose that I've always written, but my first important writing, my first professional writing was political writing. And for that kind of thing there are well established highly regarded consultants. Those consultants drilled into me, early on, that the goal of political writing isn't to be grammatically correct, rather it is to persuade. That therefore, grammar, structure, and all the rest has to be abandoned if writing it the 'right' way makes something less persuasive.
There's a lot of freedom in that, and voice.
I do believe that there is a need for great uniqueness in writing, just as there is a need for great uniqueness in our Lodges.
I am a musician so I tend to think about this topic from the perspective of harmony, which happens to also be referenced in our ritual.
But from a musical perspective, harmony is something everyone enjoys. Different voices coming together that adds layers of complexity. Even the dissonance that occurs, when resolved, leaves us with a sense of satisfaction.
Without these other voices what we have is a single melody, and while it sounds nice, after awhile it can get boring, like something is missing.
Thank you for this. I haven't considered it from the perspective of harmony and the references to that in our Degree lecture. But I think that it is perfectly on point.
Just have to say that your writing style is what makes me read your writings every day. I attended the Canadian Forces Staff and Command College, and even taught there. The writing style was 'mechanical' and fact driven and was appropriate for the environment. Later, in my civilian role, I wrote thousands of briefing documents for cabinet minsters. They were praised as documents on which decisions were made.
I read your recent post about writing with a grade level target. I had a Minister, who was great politician and leader, that needed all his materials to be written at a grade 6 level. Then he would rise in the house and deliver a powerful speech that achieved results, over a glass of scotch after a session in the house. He remarked that my job had been to give him a simple fact based paper to which he could apply his magic.
Bottom line MW Brother is that I will keep reading your magic. As MW Bro Mark Forster has as his theme "the magic is you".
Thank you for your very kind compliment. I truly appreciate it, and am thrilled to know that you read my stuff so regularly!
In all honesty, I think that there has to be a balance when we write for others. That we have to be simple enough to be easily understood, but not so simple that we are in a way 'talking down' to the reader. I also tend to not trust the writer who uses so many rarely used words as to frustrate easy comprehension, when I see that, I tend to wonder if the writer is trying to BS his reader, to slip something past.
I wholly agree. We find much opportunity and strength in our differences if we choose to see them as such. One of my favorite early memories in the Craft was playing dungeons and dragons with the Daylight Brothers. They sat me squarely between a Brother in a tux and a brother in a trench-coat with patches shoulder to toe, not unlike one you might see at DefCon. Then had conversations that about Masonry, philosophy, life, our various experiences, and professions. It was that event that cemented my desire to join the Craft.
In my 3 years of Active Guard Reserve Duty at 98th Division Training HQ in Rochester NY, I was asked to write "White papers" on policy items, that 1st Army could use (after revision). These were to be one page about "Strength Management", at 8th grade reading level.
Yep, the dumbing down to low grade reading levels is a real thing. Unfortunately. I took classes purporting to teach just that while I worked at the Legislature.
In the past, I authored several technical books. Topics focused on computer hardware and software configuration, computer networks, and software development. AI did not exist at that time. I dealt with copy editors and technical editors, along with technical reviewers.
I argued consistently with copy editors because they understood US English, but not technology. Their constant need to massage wording to fit the grammatical rules collided with the jargon and terminology used in the computing industry.
I argued consistently with technical editors who wanted to rewrite my phrasing because it was somehow different than how they would "portray" it. I had to constantly remind them that I was the author of the book and it needed to have my "signature" on it. That meant, my writing style. I even penned a chapter in a book on connecting Windows XP to Linux and vice versa. The main author of the book, in his feedback, noted that the content did not "sound like him". Well DUH!
As for AI, I have been teaching AI concepts since 2020. It started with what Microsoft called Cognitive Services. I worked at Microsoft back then. I was asked to author a module for a course that included the ability to make a conversation bot and have it perform some unique AI functionality. I chose to write about using a chat bot where a politician or a product manager at a company, could ask the bot how the world of Twitter perceived them or their product. It let them enter terms, then searched Twitter for related hash tags, returned the tweets from the platform,, and finally used sentiment analysis to display a neat little table showing the sentiment that people felt. This was the start of some truly interesting things with AI.
As I began teaching generative AI, which is the most common usage today among the general public, I found myself having to spend time helping the students understand the concepts and limitations of generative AI. The feedback you got, is a prime example of where AI still needs work.
We must remember that whatever LLM or SLM that the AI is using, is limited by the data it was trained on. The critical piece to understand is that the AI model is only able to generate a response based on the data it was trained on. This data could be old, it might not match your specific topic domain, and it can hallucinate.
I give students an example. I open Microsoft Word and use Copilot. This is the first prompt I give it.
"Please draft a cover letter for me. I am applying to Boeing for a job posting for an aerospace engineer. Use my 10 year's of experience at Bombardier as an aerospace engineer."
That is all I give it.
What is returned, starts out ok. Basically stating simple things like the role I am applying for and that I believe my tenure at Bombardier positions me well for this role.
Then, it goes off the rails. It begins to state things like:
"In my tenure at Bombardier, I gained valuable experience in composite wing design.......
WTH? Where did that come from?
It came from a mathematical algorithm that is designed to find relationships between words. It found, in its training data, references of what an aerospace engineer might do. Sure, some design wings, most, likely do not.
It's almost like giving a toddler three pictures of a bicycle and expecting them to be able to pick out bicycles from any other picture, or differentiate bicycles from tricycles and motorcycles.
My students then ask me. "Ok, so what do you use generative AI for?"
I simply use it as a thought generator. If I am stuck on coming up with an idea, I ask it to give me suggestions. It can spark my creativity.
But more importantly, if I need it for serious stuff, like work related activities, I use the concept of grounding. I provide it with relevant information that has factual accuracies related to the topic at hand. In my cover letter example, I use an actual resume for someone who was an aerospace engineer. I give the AI access to the document and tell it to use that as a reference for my experience. The output is considerably better.
What users fail to understand, when it comes to using generative AI, or AI in general, is a simple concept. Trust, but verify. I think that "consulting company" just passed along some output without any real scrutiny behind it.
And there I go again, writing a novel. Sorry.......
>>>I think that "consulting company" just passed along some output without any real >>>scrutiny behind it.
I think this is exactly right, it is fairly obvious that no one actually looked the report over before sending it to me. Had they done so the error about where the essay was published would have surely been caught.
That said, I did find the report to be quite interesting. The conclusions that it got right were surely correct, and the advice given would make the piece stronger in a way, but I'd argue weaker in another, really valuable way.
As for the editors...
I suppose that I've always written, but my first important writing, my first professional writing was political writing. And for that kind of thing there are well established highly regarded consultants. Those consultants drilled into me, early on, that the goal of political writing isn't to be grammatically correct, rather it is to persuade. That therefore, grammar, structure, and all the rest has to be abandoned if writing it the 'right' way makes something less persuasive.
There's a lot of freedom in that, and voice.
I do believe that there is a need for great uniqueness in writing, just as there is a need for great uniqueness in our Lodges.
I am a musician so I tend to think about this topic from the perspective of harmony, which happens to also be referenced in our ritual.
But from a musical perspective, harmony is something everyone enjoys. Different voices coming together that adds layers of complexity. Even the dissonance that occurs, when resolved, leaves us with a sense of satisfaction.
Without these other voices what we have is a single melody, and while it sounds nice, after awhile it can get boring, like something is missing.
Anyway, that’s my viewpoint as a musician.
Thank you for this. I haven't considered it from the perspective of harmony and the references to that in our Degree lecture. But I think that it is perfectly on point.
Just have to say that your writing style is what makes me read your writings every day. I attended the Canadian Forces Staff and Command College, and even taught there. The writing style was 'mechanical' and fact driven and was appropriate for the environment. Later, in my civilian role, I wrote thousands of briefing documents for cabinet minsters. They were praised as documents on which decisions were made.
I read your recent post about writing with a grade level target. I had a Minister, who was great politician and leader, that needed all his materials to be written at a grade 6 level. Then he would rise in the house and deliver a powerful speech that achieved results, over a glass of scotch after a session in the house. He remarked that my job had been to give him a simple fact based paper to which he could apply his magic.
Bottom line MW Brother is that I will keep reading your magic. As MW Bro Mark Forster has as his theme "the magic is you".
Thank you for your very kind compliment. I truly appreciate it, and am thrilled to know that you read my stuff so regularly!
In all honesty, I think that there has to be a balance when we write for others. That we have to be simple enough to be easily understood, but not so simple that we are in a way 'talking down' to the reader. I also tend to not trust the writer who uses so many rarely used words as to frustrate easy comprehension, when I see that, I tend to wonder if the writer is trying to BS his reader, to slip something past.
I wholly agree. We find much opportunity and strength in our differences if we choose to see them as such. One of my favorite early memories in the Craft was playing dungeons and dragons with the Daylight Brothers. They sat me squarely between a Brother in a tux and a brother in a trench-coat with patches shoulder to toe, not unlike one you might see at DefCon. Then had conversations that about Masonry, philosophy, life, our various experiences, and professions. It was that event that cemented my desire to join the Craft.
I do believe that our differences and diversity is if not the greatest strength of our Craft, certainly one of them.