The article explicitly says "no text that is generated by AI" but is a bit more ambiguous on whether AI can be used as an aide to writing. There's this section:

>This doesn’t mean nobody doing work here can ever use any of the softwares that are broadly lumped together as AI. Much as we respect the Luddites around here, we’re not against technological innovation. Nothing in our rules prohibits writers from using a new tool to help them research something, or prevents an artist from using a tool to, say, add a texture or change a color, or make some kind of small element.

As someone trying to pickup writing fiction after years of doing technical writing, I use LLMs for fast feedback to see if my words are having the intended effect (i.e., are they inducing emotions? am I describing things in interesting ways? or is it a slog to read? etc...). Since Current Affairs is a commentary magazine and not just straight facts reporting, I could imagine authors wanting similar feedback. Would this kind of usage be permitted? Seems... yes? But I'm not completely sure.

▲

asdff an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I use LLMs for fast feedback to see if my words are having the intended effect (i.e., are they inducing emotions? am I describing things in interesting ways? or is it a slog to read? etc...)

You trust LLMs to play tastemaker?

	▲	t-writescode an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Tone analysis is one of the things they’re actually and consistently good at, so, yes.
	▲	TDelta2258 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm too early in the process to worry about taste. Most of what I produce still has the voice of something like... a test report or design doc. Because that's the kind of writing I produced for decades.
	▲	surgical_fire 18 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		To be frank, sentiment analysis is one of the things language models excel at.

▲

spenuke an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Likely no. Editors and writers at Current Affairs are career professionals and their expertise is not as reproducible as the expertise of software engineers. "Does this code compile?" and "How does the review history describe this change?" are quite answerable to an LLM in a way that "Does this paragraph have the intended effect?" are not.

▲

dofm 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> are they inducing emotions?

How would an LLM tell you this with any insight that is greater than your own?

▲

chrisjj 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I use LLMs for fast feedback to see if my words are having the intended effect (i.e., are they inducing emotions?

Why? Your chatbot has ha no more experience of emotions than your teapot.

▲

freejazz 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You ask an AI if words induce emotions? Why?

	▲	crisnoble 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They want validation.

▲

alfalfasprout an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Which makes it a very reasonable take. AI as a research and ideation tool is invaluable (provided due diligence is done on sources, etc.)

AI generated writing is (usually) hot garbage.