
At Gigantic, like so many others, we have been using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in our work, to see how/if it saves time or increases creativity or quality of work, with mixed results (see past blogs here and here). A recent experience we had with AI raised some serious questions. We are sharing this to help others choose how to work with this tool to get the most useful results.
Can AI Save Time and Heartache?
The Gigantic team conducted a workshop at a recent statewide conference on illegal dumping. As part of the exercise, attendees were asked to come up with headlines that could describe the steps to a future free of illegal dumping in California. Participants filled out simple forms, writing in pen. These were collected at the end of the session. Transcribing can be a time sink, so we decided to see if AI could save some time and heartache. We asked ChatGPT to transcribe the handwritten forms, which it did, very quickly.
Startling Examples
I certainly expected to see some misspellings and misinterpreted words, and there was some of that. But what we found led to going over each sheet, word by word, comparing what we saw with what ChatGPT interpreted. Some of the “interpretations” were startling…and disturbing.
Here are just a few of the many examples we found:
Original handwritten:
Headline: Plastic Now a Thing of the Past
Subhead: Reuse and recycling are now so mainstream that the plastics industry is nearing extinction
ChatGPT transcription:
Headline: Plastic Now a Thing of the Past
Subhead: Reusable packaging are now mainstream what was once considered weird is now the norm
The above is not a misreading of individual words. It feels like a purposeful hiding of the original intent of holding the plastics industry responsible for its products’ pollution.
Another example did not recognize the widely discussed “billionaire tax”:
Original:
Headline: Billionaires tax funds Illegal Dumping department in largest cities.
Subhead: Trash identification software for safe sorting, robotic trash retrieval systems and state of the art cameras are now in use.
ChatGPT:
Headline: Billions in funds allocated to illegal dump reduction in most cities
Subhead: State funded cameras and prosecution of repeat offenders
“Prosecution of repeat offenders” seems to be a strange substitution for the technological solutions originally listed.
My favorite mistake shows that ChatGPT is not sensitive to satire:
Original:
Headline: Surveillance state achieved!
Subhead: AI cameras on every corner monitoring activities
ChatGPT:
Headline: Governor signs Acton? (sic)
Subhead: AI cameras reduce waste management costs
How AI “Transcribes”
As you know, AI works by scraping the Internet, then “guessing”, based on previous patterns and content, the answers to questions that are put to it.
I had some suspicions about why these particular words/ideas were being changed. I asked ChatGPT, and got the answer:
This is called “hallucination”
In AI, a hallucination occurs when the model generates information that is plausible but not actually present in the input.
With handwritten documents, hallucinations become more common because:
-
- handwriting is ambiguous;
- scans or photos may be low quality;
- some words are partially obscured;
- the model is optimized to produce coherent language.
Rather than outputting:
“[illegible]”
it often substitutes something that “fits the topic.” (my quotes)
Sure, OK. We have heard of hallucinations — AI does not always tell the truth.
Another concern is that the information sources “scraped” by AI are dominated by particular interests and points of view. This algorithmic bias has been extensively documented. Also concerning is that it is estimated that as much as 50% of current web content is already AI generated, which then could be re-absorbed by AI scraping. Surely this will lead to amplified bias, a dumber Internet…and dumber humans?
And for those of us in the environmental space, the toll of AI on resources presents thorny ethical challenges. Should we use this tool – that is radiating climate-damaging heat, using up water and making untenable energy demands – to help people make better recycling choices?
What Have We Learned?
In the end, the necessary cross-checking of some 70 handwritten sheets took about the same amount of time as entering it from scratch. While time was not saved, we gained some valuable insights into how to use – and not use – AI.
If you want to repeat the transcription exercise (or something similar), one lesson is to be alert to bias and to be very specific in your instructions. Tell the AI (below is suggested by AI):
“Transcribe the handwriting exactly as written. Do not rewrite, summarize, interpret, or improve the text. If any word is uncertain, reproduce your best reading and mark it with [?]. If a word cannot be read, write [illegible]. Preserve spelling, grammar, punctuation, and line breaks exactly.”
However, more broadly, I think these examples show how dangerous and disingenuous relying on AI can be. AI is only as smart as the content it has absorbed. The content it has absorbed is the Internet. Think about some of the slop you’ve seen and ask yourself, “Is this what I can trust?”
Good luck out there!















Have you noticed some changes in your marketing metrics, such as a decline in organic web traffic, despite your ongoing efforts? This may be due to the rise of AI, and it’s going to affect how we do – and measure – environmental outreach going forward.
As we have every year for decades (!), members of the Gigantic team attended CRRA 2025, the premier conference for zero waste and resource recovery professionals in California. Each GIS attendee had different highlights and takeaways, but as usual, we brought home information and inspiration to help our work.

