Its my strong belief that using AI in any capacity which does not upfront state "the following content was generated by artificial intelligence" is never acceptable. In most situations, allowing an AI to wield your name gives off the scent of "My time is more valuable than yours, so I've automated writing to you." It is quite disgraceful. If your use-case would be materially harmed by an upfront disclosure of AI generated content, then you need to take a good, hard think on what that means for what you're doing (then again, maybe you're not interested in thinking anymore and that's how you got to this point in your life).

▲

Wowfunhappy 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How far do you take this policy?

1. Am I allowed to ask an AI to proofread a draft for grammatical errors?

2. Am I allowed to ask an AI to proofread a draft for technical errors?

3. In both #1 and #2, am I allowed to ask the AI to suggest revisions, or is it only allowed to point out what's wrong and why?

4. If I write a sentence like "Lucy's laughter ___ her underlying anxiety" and I'm having trouble coming up with the right word to fill in the blank, can I give the sentence to an AI and ask it for a list of possible options?

5. If I need help brainstorming, can I use the AI as a souped up rubber duck before I start writing?

▲

misnome 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s good-faith arbitrage. Until everyone automatically suspects everything to be LLM generated and there is zero trust, anyone doing this is eroding the good faith that lets them get away with it in the first place.

▲

Larrikin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with you when you are talking with a human in good faith. I disagree when it comes to large corporations and government officials. Often times theres a lot of red tape you have to get through and create documents that nobody on their side is actually reading. Usually this is just to discourage people from completing the action they are trying to accomplish. LLM generated content has gotten me back improperly held taxes and generated multiple extension requests where the receiver just had to check a box that they got it.

▲

alsetmusic 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> state "the following content was generated by artificial intelligence"

"… but reviewed by a human / me for accuracy."

▲

brookst 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

NikolaNovak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am genuinely curious if you are trolling, or putting that forward as a genuine argument?

Trivially, it's the difference between medium, and message/content.

On one axis, whether message is spoken, written via pen or typewriter or word processor, sent electronically, faxed,mailed, etc - it is fundamentally a communication from one human being to another, even if medium / mechanics differ.

The other axis is actual content - genuine human interaction, intent, message and connection, vs a result of a prompt.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

JadeNB 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Same thing as using a word processor and printer rather than handwriting a note. Inexcusable.

There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.