| But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... As such, isn't the question really about 1) whether it was communicated clearly/effectively
2) whether it should have been communicated to others at all (rather than something that you just dealt with yourself) As for the writer being paid to use their expertise, learn more things etc: absolutely. But they could spend whatever time is required to think about the issue and then still have Ai write it at their direction. And, regardless of who wrote it, it could still be poor, irrelevant or misleading. I'm not defending AI over-usage, but you folks evidently haven't thought about any of this nearly sufficiently enough... and the policy doesn't seem to be addressing what it ought to be: whether everyone is actually thinking, learning, discerning, deciding etc... Ps I passed your comments to chatgpt and asked what it thought about it all, and it missed all of this. But then agreed once I brought it all up. Then it did a poor job of writing it's own response. I couldn't be bothered to guide it towards something more appropriate. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a86cc31-f058-83e8-8abd-3921b518ec... |
| |
| ▲ | coldtea 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... Not the same burden. The value of the person is digesting and giving the materially important stuff in the answer (including their expertise and opinion). Not the AI diarrhea. | | |
| ▲ | nchmy 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I made some ninja edits, so perhaps you didn't see them. But it is entirely possible that both a person and an Ai could produce writing that is both good or bad, useful or misleading. You can also direct the Ai to write about specific points and, again, it may write somehing good or bad. I provided a link to a chat I had with chatgpt about this very conversation and it shows everything I was saying. The fundamental issue is whether people are taking responsibility to communicate what needs to be communicated, in an effective manner. Whether the final words were authored by Ai or not is largely irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | >I made some ninja edits, so perhaps you didn't see them. But it is entirely possible that both a person and an Ai could produce writing that is both good or bad, useful or misleading. Theoritically yes. In practice: - AI responses I get are walls of written dhiarrea. - I'd rather get the bad/misleading/not-useful response from the person, rather that the good one they made via AI. This way I know they don't know what they're doing, are bad communicators, depend purely on the AI, and thus can be fired and spare the paycheck or merely be replaced by someone merely feeding the AI. | |
| ▲ | je42 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For me, being quite "dyslectic" - LLM generated sentences have the advantage of being spelled correctly and being grammartically correct.
I rather prefer iterating over LLM text than writing it by myself.
Example: Typing this simple text above by myself was not straight forward. | |
| ▲ | bayindirh 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The thing is, I expect the person who sent me something to know about and understood what they have sent me. I don’t expect the other person to copy my response to the same chat and paste the AI response back even without reading it. Don’t be a meat proxy. | |
| ▲ | jorisw 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | My problem isn't who wrote it, but the pretense of something having written by a person while it wasn't. There's something profoundly disrespectful about it towards the receiver. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lurking_swe 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But isn't that "burden" on others always going to be there, whether you or AI wrote it? That's what communicating is... I think it can be OK if AI is used to polish up one’s message or to help structure it. Basically help with grammar, formatting, and wording. But copy pasting an AIs response to a question? Not at all. People earn a reputation over time. TRUST is earned. An AI cannot earn trust. If you copy paste an AI response verbatim, i need to read everything in your message with a big grain of salt. Imagine doing this all the time as a reader? Exhausting and a waste of others time. If i want to read raw AI output i’ll ask the AI directly, thanks. If you write something in your own words, or at least synthesize an AI response before sharing it with me, then i know i’m reading something that has at least passed the smell test. It’s the difference between reviewing a pull request from an intern and a principal software engineer. | | |
| ▲ | nchmy 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree at all. But it still remains that AI can very much be effectively used either to write first drafts OR refine your own first drafts. Though, I think such a writing partner can only really be useful if you know how to write yourself, which also requires knowing how to think (because writing is really just thinking). So, again, in the end all that really matters is whether you are effectively communicating what needs to be communicated, Ai-assisted or not. It's quite apparent to other thinking people when someone is not doing that, and that hurts their reputation, undermines trust and ultimately leads to losing your job, connections etc... So, again, the policy really should just be something to the effect of "you're being paid to help us be effective and correct. If you can't do that, we don't need you. Take that into consideration with regards to the tools that you use.". That's obviously not an adequate policy - Ai could surely be helpful in polishing it! But it most definitely couldn't get to the root of the matter on its own. |
| |
| ▲ | jorisboris 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You bring up a good point. Maybe it doesn't matter whether an ai or a person wrote it, as long as it is concise. And because most ai's are not concise we blame ai's for faults we don't like in humans either: being longwinding | | |
| ▲ | nchmy 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, I'd say concision is not the key - sometimes you should be verbose or something else. In fact, my tendency is to be far too long-winded, with lots of perhaps-unnecessary parantheticals etc. Ai is often shockingly useful at reining me in and focusing on the issue at hand, as well as removing my worst tendencies towards meanness etc... Im a good writer, when I want to be. But having Ai review, edit, write drafts etc undoubtedly makes me a better writer/communicator. But only because I'm actively thinking about it all, rather than just saying "respond to this" and then providing copy pasta. | |
| ▲ | Hugsbox 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're missing the whole entire point. |
|
|
