Analysing an Opinion Column: “A Radical Opinion on ChatGPT” (IB May 2024 past paper)
Read Thomas Maisey’s opinion article here.
Student’s Essay (unseen analysis)
In "A Radical Opinion on ChatGPT", an opinion piece published in UX Collective, targeting designers concerned with the future of originality, writer Thomas Maisey presents a thought-provoking critique of artificial intelligence's role in creativity, framing it as both a challenge and an opportunity for originality. Through a personal, opinionated perspective, a rebellious and provocative tone, rhetorical devices, personal experiences, accessible language, and humor, Maisey challenges UX designers to defend originality in the face of technological change.
The text type feature of title, "A Radical Opinion on ChatGPT," immediately signals that the article is an opinion piece, preparing readers to engage with a subjective and personal exploration of the topic. By framing the content as an opinion, the title establishes the foundation for the article’s interpretative approach, encouraging readers to view the arguments through the lens of personal insight. Another text type feature, displaying the author’s name “Thomas Maisey” prominently, highlights the personal nature of the arguments and ties them to the writer’s identity, expertise, and experiences. This hallmark of opinion writing fosters trust and accountability, as readers can assess the credibility of the ideas based on the writer’s voice and character. The combination of a clear title, personal authorial voice, and subjective framing makes the article persuasive by establishing credibility and encouraging readers to engage thoughtfully with the writer’s perspective.
The article further persuades its readers by establishing a personal and opinionated perspective, making the narrative more relatable and credible. For instance, the author writes, “When I played around with ChatGPT I was both impressed and saddened,” signaling a personal experience and emotional reaction. This first-person statement invites readers to connect with the writer’s reflective journey, creating an intimate tone. Additionally, inclusive language “we should shift our thinking” and “it’s our job, our challenge” emphasize the writer’s ethical viewpoint while fostering a sense of collective responsibility through inclusive language. This approach not only personalizes the argument but also persuades readers by making them feel invested in the topic, enhancing the article’s overall impact.
In addition to its personal tone, the article adopts a rebellious and provocative approach, challenging readers to rethink their assumptions about AI. Statements like “Churn out every idea and then burn it down” provoke attention through vivid verbs like "churn" and "burn," emphasizing innovation over conformity. Similarly, the assertion that “ChatGPT will be a threat to being remarkable and original if it’s not embraced in a radical way” contradicts the popular belief in AI’s neutrality or universal benefit. This defiance is further highlighted by antithetical phrasing, such as “a problem of originality” and “a challenge to get back to being remarkable.” The bold tone not only sparks curiosity but also persuades readers to view AI as both a risk and an opportunity, inspiring them to take action.
Building on its bold tone, the article employs rhetorical questions and calls to action to engage readers and reinforce its argument. For example, the provocative question “Is this really what I want to put out there?” prompts readers to critically evaluate their creative outputs, aligning their self-reflection with the author’s concerns. Moreover, directives, such as “Churn out every idea and then burn it down” and “Find a place for the content and park it there,” use imperatives to challenge readers to rethink their reliance on AI tools, urging active participation. These rhetorical strategies enhance the persuasiveness of the article by making readers feel directly addressed and responsible for maintaining originality in their work.
By sharing personal experiences, Maisey grounds the article in relatable, lived realities that resonate with readers. The anecdote “When I played around with ChatGPT” reflects a hands-on exploration of AI, making the argument feel authentic and relevant to others experimenting with similar tools. The vivid description, “impressed and saddened,” expresses a paradoxical reaction to AI’s capabilities, mirroring the bittersweet feelings many readers may share. By anchoring the conversation in personal experience, the writer not only builds credibility but also connects with the audience on an emotional level, making the argument more persuasive.
The article lends credibility to its arguments by referencing well-known figures like George Orwell and Seth Godin. Quoting Orwell’s “Never use a metaphor...you are used to seeing in print” reinforces the timeless value of originality in writing, while referring to Godin’s “Purple Cow” underscores the importance of being remarkable in both creative and professional contexts. By juxtaposing these two authorities, Maisey highlights the universality of originality across disciplines, reassuring readers that it remains crucial even in the age of AI. These references lend intellectual weight to the article, making the argument more authoritative and convincing.
The image of three identical cows functions as a striking visual metaphor that reinforces Thomas Maisey's critique of the homogenizing effects of generative AI on creativity. Stylized in bold colors against a stark orange background, the image serves as a powerful visual metaphor and persuasive device in Thomas Maisey's argument. The repetitive nature of the cows symbolizes the homogenization of creativity that Maisey fears could result from over-reliance on generative AI like ChatGPT. By presenting the same subject replicated without variation, the image reinforces the idea of conformity and the loss of originality. The vibrant yet artificial color palette mirrors the unnatural, machine-driven processes that Maisey critiques, visually aligning with his warning against sacrificing authenticity for convenience. Positioned prominently, the image captures attention and primes the reader to consider the risks of mechanizing creativity, effectively amplifying the article's central argument.
Maisey uses informal and conversational language to make the article accessible and engaging to a broad audience. The opening line, “We need to talk about ChatGPT,” mimics everyday speech, creating an inviting and urgent tone. Similarly, phrases like “See, ChatGPT will be a threat...” feel direct and personal, drawing readers into the discussion. Complex ideas are simplified through relatable examples, such as “Think about how streaming services and social media feeds retain your attention with tailored recommendations.” This accessible style breaks down intimidating technical concepts, ensuring readers can easily follow and engage with the argument, increasing its persuasive appeal.
Humor in the article, though subtle, adds levity to the discussion and strengthens its persuasiveness. Phrases like “Churn out every idea and then burn it down” exaggerate the rejection of AI-generated content, humorously portraying it as a dramatic act of rebellion against mediocrity. Similarly, the directive “Throw it away. Challenge ourselves to produce work that looks nothing like that at all” uses blunt defiance to deliver a humorous yet serious critique of conformity. The metaphor “Find a place for the content and park it there” humorously reduces AI’s creative potential to something mundane, like parking a car. These instances of dry wit and irony make the article more engaging, ensuring readers remain entertained while absorbing the central argument.
Thomas Maisey's opinion piece effectively uses a provocative and rebellious tone to forces readers to question whether reliance on AI diminishes originality and shifts creative power away from individuals. While the uncompromising tone succeeds in sparking debate about the risks of AI’s influence on human creativity, its polarizing nature limits its ability to engage a wider, more open-minded audience.
