3 ms·

This is not very clear about the case where the text is AI generated and substantially edited, fact checked, and improved by a human co-author. I think that ki

This is not very clear about the case where the text is AI generated and substantially edited, fact checked, and improved by a human co-author. I think that kind of writing is perfectly valid. AI contexts can now include primary references, and with human critique, AI can fix a lot of its own style and factuality issues. A good author writing this way will end up writing in their own voice, but spend less time drafting and revising, since they can delegate that to their AI assistant.

lelandfe 3y ago
I believe that would be, from my link, "AI-assistive." Such text would need "a disclosure at the beginning of the story (within the first two paragraphs)." The reason given is, "in practice, AI-assist is often a way to insert small snippets of AI-generated content that often suffers from the same problems as fully AI- generated stories." In other words, readers need a heads up that, no matter how well-edited the text is, there's a chance of hallucinated junk to be found within. I'm sure I'm missing some edge cases, but this all seems pretty darn lucid to me!
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  I feel it's fair to filter out writing that is fully AI without human proofing. That's because that writing is awful. However, assuming an author competently edits and proofs the final work, I don't need or want to know if they used AI. Just like I don't need to know if they used a human intern, editor, or other co-author - assuming the co-author did not demand attribution. Let's stick to worrying about lazy and incompetent authors. There is no reason to penalize otherwise competent authors for co-authoring with AI. Prediction: This is going to hurt medium, by driving off competent AI assisted writers. They will find inclusive platforms. And frankly I'm glad. Medium is a plague on the internet, and needs to die horribly. This is the way.

lelandfe 3y ago

I believe that would be, from my link, "AI-assistive." Such text would need "a disclosure at the beginning of the story (within the first two paragraphs)." The reason given is, "in practice, AI-assist is often a way to insert small snippets of AI-generated content that often suffers from the same problems as fully AI- generated stories." In other words, readers need a heads up that, no matter how well-edited the text is, there's a chance of hallucinated junk to be found within. I'm sure I'm missing some edge cases, but this all seems pretty darn lucid to me!

barfbagginus 3y ago
I feel it's fair to filter out writing that is fully AI without human proofing. That's because that writing is awful. However, assuming an author competently edits and proofs the final work, I don't need or want to know if they used AI. Just like I don't need to know if they used a human intern, editor, or other co-author - assuming the co-author did not demand attribution. Let's stick to worrying about lazy and incompetent authors. There is no reason to penalize otherwise competent authors for co-authoring with AI. Prediction: This is going to hurt medium, by driving off competent AI assisted writers. They will find inclusive platforms. And frankly I'm glad. Medium is a plague on the internet, and needs to die horribly. This is the way.