I agree to a limited extent, and find the Pangram excitement a tad puritanical except when applied to writing prize winners — universities have had plagiarism checks for two decades, this is no different. Right now the problem with AI is accuracy and quality. I would be wary of a manual written by AI, I would like it clearly labelled so I could use it with caution. AI is also a truly horrible writer and my brain hurts to read it so I would not pick up a novel that was clearly labelled as written by AI. I would not read Substack articles either — a lot have had AI help and I soldier on, but anything labelled AI I would skip or filter out, just because I don’t enjoy reading it. Once the writing gets better and less predictable I might care less; a lot of people probably care less already. But I’d like it labelled so the rest of us can avoid it as much as possible. So I agree, eventually it will be ubiquitous (it’s already close) but it should also be easy to add a “no AI” filter to Substack for those who wish to avoid it.
While I resile at the use of LLM'S to create content which is then passed off as original, I am extremely leery of the Witch Hunter mentality that is growing. The accusation flung by the 'righteous' of a person using an LLM to write their work, whether true or not, is damaging. Malicious actors, spiteful goons, trolls and hateful people are trying to position themselves are virtuous people, calling out the evil doers aligning themselves with the tools of the devil. It's literally history repeating.
Maybe this app is accurate but it only matters if the person posting the work is claiming that the work is purely human crafted. I want people to be honest, naive I know, but I want to know what I'm reading are the real words from a human mind, not the scrapping of the internet then edited to be coherent.
Witch Hunters are vile people. The same can be said of the currentcrop of people who have taken on the mantle and are happy, nay, gleeful when they can burn someone on a bonfire of accusations which often are baseless.
The app must be 100% accurate. Otherwise innocent people can have their reputation ruined.
I'm getting more interested in what the flood of AI writing, and AI detectors, are doing to how humans write their own, unassisted content. At worst, we have people today who insert or let slide typos and tells that say, a human wrote this. But at best, creative writers are freed if not pressed to write in ways uniquely and unfalsifiably theirs.
Agreed, and please reframe the thing about “the way of the Buffalo”
Buffalos were bountied and slaughtered almost to extinction by the US government to take the means of living away from people who relied on them.
It’s not like it was anything “natural.”
I agree to a limited extent, and find the Pangram excitement a tad puritanical except when applied to writing prize winners — universities have had plagiarism checks for two decades, this is no different. Right now the problem with AI is accuracy and quality. I would be wary of a manual written by AI, I would like it clearly labelled so I could use it with caution. AI is also a truly horrible writer and my brain hurts to read it so I would not pick up a novel that was clearly labelled as written by AI. I would not read Substack articles either — a lot have had AI help and I soldier on, but anything labelled AI I would skip or filter out, just because I don’t enjoy reading it. Once the writing gets better and less predictable I might care less; a lot of people probably care less already. But I’d like it labelled so the rest of us can avoid it as much as possible. So I agree, eventually it will be ubiquitous (it’s already close) but it should also be easy to add a “no AI” filter to Substack for those who wish to avoid it.
Everything boils down to just doing good work. Good read!
I agree with your Freudian slip “but did a human right this?” ;(
How do you use AI in your writing process?
I must be ahead of the curve cause I dont give a damn now.
Hum to the tune of "Sad But True" (if anyone still remembers that band). 🎶 😭
Sadly, you are almost certainly right. And I have nothing against writers using tools.
But I asked myself .. "If I knew with certainty that every essay in Substack was written by AI, would I ever open the app again?"
Of course not. But...
While I resile at the use of LLM'S to create content which is then passed off as original, I am extremely leery of the Witch Hunter mentality that is growing. The accusation flung by the 'righteous' of a person using an LLM to write their work, whether true or not, is damaging. Malicious actors, spiteful goons, trolls and hateful people are trying to position themselves are virtuous people, calling out the evil doers aligning themselves with the tools of the devil. It's literally history repeating.
Maybe this app is accurate but it only matters if the person posting the work is claiming that the work is purely human crafted. I want people to be honest, naive I know, but I want to know what I'm reading are the real words from a human mind, not the scrapping of the internet then edited to be coherent.
Witch Hunters are vile people. The same can be said of the currentcrop of people who have taken on the mantle and are happy, nay, gleeful when they can burn someone on a bonfire of accusations which often are baseless.
The app must be 100% accurate. Otherwise innocent people can have their reputation ruined.
I'm getting more interested in what the flood of AI writing, and AI detectors, are doing to how humans write their own, unassisted content. At worst, we have people today who insert or let slide typos and tells that say, a human wrote this. But at best, creative writers are freed if not pressed to write in ways uniquely and unfalsifiably theirs.