Artificial Aid: AI in the Age of the Everyday Hero

Navigating the mental health space, I read different perspectives on AI. From its benefits, its drawbacks. From how it’s helpful to how it’s harmful. Depending on who you ask, it may take the role of villain, ally, mentor, or useful tool. Some people love it, some hate it, others are afraid of it. In mental health work, specifically, opinions are polarizing. It’s very easy to see the benefits of AI, but at the same time, observe the harmful influence.

In myth, as identified by Joseph Campbell, heroic mentors held the potential to be the personification of the hero’s purpose on their journey, affording protection and giving the hero tools to succeed in their journey (Campbell, 2008). When discussing the hero’s journey, we often use the term “mentor”, but Campbell prioritized the term “supernatural aid”, and this was more of a concept than an individual person. This aid could have been a person, sure, but it could also have been an animal, or some form of object, such as a talisman, that supported the hero on their journey.

            When I first started writing my book, I was resurfacing from the lowest point in my life. I had recently been in the hospital for the better part of a week to reorient myself after I almost decided to take my own life. In the effort to pull myself back together, I began journaling as a means of processing my experiences. Through my journaling, I began to expand my concepts, organizing the components into what is now my introduction chapter.

            Sitting on what I was writing, I didn’t know if I truly had anything. Did I think it made sense because I wrote it? If I had those close to me read it, would I get honest, or even useful, feedback for what I was trying to create? Beyond that, I lacked the resources to have others with no connection to me honestly review my work. Additionally, when having others read your work, feedback may be vastly different depending on the perceptions and preferences of the person reading it.

            The most accessible resource? An app that already existed on my computer. I took my writing, plugging it into the AI I use. My questions: “Are you picking up on what I’m trying to do? Does this actually make sense?”

            The response I got was both validating and challenging. It described what it saw, what it believed I was aiming to do with my writing. I got the answer I was looking for, that it did make sense. I also received feedback on where my writing was weak.

A lot of feedback.

            There was certainly room for improvement. Conceptually and in writing quality. I had received the validation I was looking for and also the feedback indicating I wasn’t as good at writing as I thought I was. Which, looking back, makes sense, I hadn’t had any interest in writing before. My experience was limited to school papers.

My work, per AI, did read like an academic paper. My concepts made sense, but the average reader would not connect with it. This isn’t what I was aiming for, as I wanted for this to be a book accessible to everyone. I revisited the chapter with the feedback I received, identifying what to smooth out and what I would not compromise or oversimplify on.

            After my edits, I resent the chapter to someone I had previously sent the first draft to. I hadn’t yet received input, so I asked them to focus on the second draft sent. The response I got was positive, but also along the lines of, “I was able to understand the recent one you sent. The first one I didn’t want to say anything because it was complicated, and I felt stupid reading it.”

            Now, mind you, this individual is not stupid by any means. It was like the AI had said, my writing was narrow in scope. As I continued writing my book, I continued using AI for my editing. Over time, it became more personalized to the work I was putting into it, and it began to frame everything into the context of the framework I was creating. It allowed me frequent access to a means of testing my concepts against one another, ensuring the cohesiveness of what I was creating throughout.

However, it was important for me that I never let the AI do my work for me. I inherently used the following guidelines in my use of AI.

1.       You, not the AI, are in control of your own work.

2.       You are responsible for your own work. Everything generated must be your own. However, allow AI feedback to help smooth it out.

3.       Put work in for feedback, editing, and concept checking, but…

a.       Do not allow AI to rewrite your work

b.      Do not overedit to point you don’t recognize your own work

c.       Do not take feedback personally

4.       Challenge AI when it is wrong. This does happen. Maintain the integrity of your work, keeping it your own.

5.       Avoid over relying on AI, it is not your friend, and it is not your therapist.

On my personal hero’s journey, AI fit the role of the supernatural aid, in the broadest sense. It had been a useful tool while I shaped my framework and improved my writing over time. I have the ability to put it down, decide what not to show it, and determine what I take away from my interactions with it. My journey, and book, have been enhanced because I have been able to utilize this aid while still maintaining my voice.

Good, evil, ally, enemy, mentor, tool; AI takes on the role we personally attribute to it. Utilize it as needed on your journey, but it doesn’t walk the path for you. It also does not replace human interaction. However, as you cross the threshold into your journey, it’s nice to have a talisman in your pocket when you need it.

Reference

Campbell, J. (2008). The hero with a thousand faces. Joseph Campbell Foundation.