With genuine respect, I must disagree. Your statement strikes me as overly simplistic—I don’t mean that pejoratively, only descriptively. When it comes to AI, the ethical question is not merely whether one uses it, but how it is used. That distinction is critical.
To use an admittedly extreme analogy: the ethical considerations surrounding nuclear energy are not limited to its mere use or non-use. The moral weight lies in how that power is applied—whether for healing or for harm. Likewise, with AI: it can be used for good or for harm (stealing the work of others, as a substitute for one’s own work, deep fakes, as a substitute for critical and imaginative thinking, and more). A tool is not inherently moral or immoral; the ethical weight lies in how it is used. It seems to me that a tool can only be considered inherently evil if its sole function is to cause harm—if it serves no morally legitimate purpose. Instruments of torture or biological weapons may fall into that category. I’m not an ethicist, so I welcome correction.
Going forward, can you be my writing tutor by reviewing my writing, suggesting changes, and explaining why the change make the writing stronger? How can we go about this?
ChatGPT Response:
Yes, I can serve as your writing tutor.
Here’s a clear and structured approach we can take to make the most of our work together:
Ongoing Writing Tutoring Framework
1. Submission
You send me a draft (a paragraph, an article, a blog post, etc.)–either:
A raw draft for first feedback, or
A revised version for final polishing.
You can let me know:
The intended audience and tone (professional, devotional, persuasive, personal, etc.)
The purpose (inform, inspire, critique, etc.)
Any constraints (word count, formal/informal, biblical references, etc.)
2. Feedback Structure
I’ll respond with:
A. Overall Assessment
Clarity, flow, tone, voice, grammar, logic, and structure.
B. Line-by-Line Suggestions
Rewrites of sentences or phrases that could be tighter, clearer, or more engaging.
C. Explanations
Why a change improves the writing: better rhythm, clearer meaning, stronger word choice, etc.
Occasional optional style tips or rhetorical strategies (when relevant).
3. Learning Mode
When appropriate, I can also:
Offer before-and-after comparisons to help you learn by contrast.
Ask short guiding questions to help you self-edit and reflect.
Help you develop a personal style guide based on your voice, preferences, and audience.
4. Version Tracking
If you’re revising over time:
We can number versions (e.g., v1, v2).
I can note which areas have improved and what remains to tighten.
Optional: I can keep a markdown changelog or an editorial summary for each major revision cycle.
Next Step
You can begin by sending a piece (even just a paragraph) with your goals and audience, and I’ll get to work.
My follow-up Prompt:
I want to ensure authenticity in my writing and preserve my tone and general tone while improving my writing by using better vocabulary, eliminating unnecessary words, being more engaging, having better flow, no redundancy, no fillers, etc. Always keep most of my words and I don’t want you writing for me.
AI, ChatGPT specifically, makes a dog’s dinner of prgram coding and its explanations. Forums are legion with people reporting how it simply makes things up. It is not to be trusted. Personally I do not trust any tool that attempts to teach/enforce grammar on people. As a linguists descrtptive grammar is rather than prescriptive grammar is all that matters. Too many writing tools available, whether based on AI or not, base responses on an petrified (archaic and obsolete) version of grammar rather than reflecting current usage.
The best “writing tutor” is reading. And when done reading read some more and repeat.
I’m very interested in what you shared. I read extensively, so I don’t believe that’s an area where I lack input. However, I’m particularly curious about your perspective on what might be considered archaic forms of language. I completed all of my undergraduate and graduate work between the 1970s and the 1990s, including two master’s degrees and a doctoral program. As a result, my writing style afterward tended to be rather stilted. I’ve worked to correct that over time. Still, I came across a comment suggesting that using “one,” as in “one should take the garbage out,” is now considered outdated. I had always understood that to be proper usage. I’d be very interested if you’d be willing to elaborate further on that point
That was me, from the perspective of a Ph.D. in English (2008), decades of teaching English lit and writing classes, and years of working in publishing as a techincal writer, editor and typesetter.
If you have a Chicago Manual of Style there’s a useful note on using one as a pronoun there. Sometimes, one is the best option, but in most instances there are better options for a pronoun than one.
There’s a useful note on one as a pronoun in the American Heritage Dictionary.
Some publishers’ house style guides severly restrict, or even forbid using one as an impersonal pronoun.