Chapter 29

Technology vs. Tradition — Can AI Fix the Madness, or Will It Repeat It?

Technology vs. Tradition — Can AI Fix the Madness, or Will It Repeat It?

We trained the robot on broken rules — and now it corrects us with confidence.

The Traditional Rule:

Technology is neutral. Tools like AI grammar checkers, automated essay scorers, and language apps simply enforce the rules that already exist. Better tools mean better writing — right?

Why It’s Broken:

Because the "rules" AI learns are the same illogical, elitist, and outdated ones we've spent this book challenging.

Most AI language tools — from autocorrect to grammar bots like Grammarly and ChatGPT — are trained on standardized English corpora: newspapers, textbooks, academic essays, government memos. That means they're absorbing every weird, contradictory, exclusionary habit embedded in formal English.

Worse: they don’t question the rules. They enforce them with terrifying confidence.


Absurdities and Contradictions:

  • AI flags “ain’t” as wrong — even in dialogue.

  • It “corrects” contractions like “y’all” or “gonna” into lifeless formality.

  • It rejects African American Vernacular English (AAVE) patterns as “grammatical errors.”

  • It autocorrects “colour” to “color” — or vice versa — based on system settings, not user intent.

  • It penalizes passive voice, sentence fragments, and stylistic boldness — unless you're a famous writer, in which case it's considered “style.”


Real-World Examples:

  • Grammarly labels “He be working” as incorrect — despite it being a valid habitual tense in AAVE.

  • Chatbots offer “corrections” to Shakespearean lines, Dickensian idioms, and poetic metaphors — because they “don’t conform.”

  • AI grading tools reward formulaic five-paragraph structures over innovative or expressive writing.


British vs. American Variants:

  • AI models often default to American spelling and grammar — erasing UK variants like “organise,” “learnt,” or “the government are.”

  • Some tools allow toggles, but most still treat the “other” version as second-best or optional.

  • In international contexts, students often get “penalized” by algorithms trained on one variant of English over another.


The Reform Proposal:

  1. Retrain AI on real, diverse, living language — not just academic corpora.

  2. Teach machines to respect variation, not erase it.

  3. Embed linguistic context, not just surface-level correctness.

  4. Let users choose dialects, tones, and registers — and teach AI to respect them.

  5. Replace “error detection” with “communication enhancement.”


How It Would Work in Practice:

  • Users can set “casual,” “dialect-rich,” “poetic,” or “multilingual” modes in AI writing tools.

  • AI explains why a phrase might be nonstandard — without suggesting it’s wrong.

  • Grammar checkers flag colonial leftovers and outdated rules as questionable — not mandatory.

  • AI helps expand expression, not police it.


Final Word: Don’t Let the Bots Become the New Pedants.

Technology can liberate language — or it can fossilize it. If we feed our machines the mistakes of our traditions, they’ll enforce them forever.

Let’s train AI not just to correct — but to understand. Not just to replicate — but to reform.

Let the future of English be smart, fair, curious — and gloriously human.