> Some are paid to post to move public opinion, advertize, etc but your messages do not appear that way. Also you are using an 80 day old “throwitaway1123” acco

> Some are paid to post to move public opinion, advertize, etc but your messages do not appear that way. Also you are using an 80 day old “throwitaway1123” account. This feels like a bit of a non-sequitur to me because I don't see how it has any bearing on the issues we're discussing. But since we're on the topic, your account is 8 years old and you've got less than a quarter of my karma. Maybe lay off of the ChatGPT responses ;) > What sort of “credit” are you hoping for? Just because I believe authors have the right to insist on being credited doesn't mean I believe they are required to invoke that right immediately (or ever). > I also prefer to speak directly but that style can be misunderstood / come across rude so I use GPT4 to save time explaining my thoughts and also to critique my thoughts. This is out of respect to my audience so I do not waste their time with trivial thinking blunders that a machine can catch. I've found that ChatGPT is more likely to be the source of the thinking blunders, rather than the solution. The clearer your thinking is on its own, the less utility you'll get out of using ChatGPT as a crutch. > You think her work should be judged not just on the manuscript but also whether machines helped her write it. You're misrepresenting my argument. I think her work should be judged based on its quality, but if she chooses to claim the credit for her writing she should be entitled to do so. There's no way to argue against people being able to say "I wrote this, not ChatGPT", so you have to invent straw men to argue against instead. You're arguing with phantoms of your imagination. > The superficial surface style of words and style of the passages is about as important as the style of the fonts. I am happy to let a machine handle it if it can. Ditto if language translation was required. We are not writing poetry. What matters is you understand me and I understand you. I think there's a reason why we had to invent literal artificial intelligence in order to produce even a facsimile of human writing whereas spell check and digital fonts have existed for decades — it's because writing well is difficult! Writing isn't the only component that matters when communicating. Obviously the underlying ideas are important, but to dismiss it altogether is naive. The importance of writing exists on a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is poetry, where the prose itself is more important than the ideas, and on the other end would be something like a csv file or spreadsheet where there's almost no writing at all. Scientific papers fall somewhere along that spectrum, and the only way to determine where a given paper falls would be to develop a weighting function, which is not something I'm interested in. If writing is supposedly so trivial that it's comparable to a font or a spell checker, why did it take decades of sustained work by an army of AI researchers to get to a point where even you still don't fully trust it to completely represent your ideas, and have to add disclaimers every time you use it? I might end this conversation here because I've written so much that HN made me break some of my comments into separate replies, and I've got work to do. Thank you for this discussion!