4 ms·

What constitutes “at edited”. If I throw a block of text in to an ai see if it makes sense — say a response to a post — and fold the suggestions in, is that “ai

What constitutes “at edited”. If I throw a block of text in to an ai see if it makes sense — say a response to a post — and fold the suggestions in, is that “ai edited”?

ASalazarMX 7mo ago
Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
- rendleflag 7mo ago
  It can catch things that I might miss or might be misinterpreted. I sometime miss simple things, like like repeated words, that an AI point out. Is a spell checker considered "AI"? Is Grammerly? Okay, maybe Grammerly from 5 years ago as opposed to today? If I'm typing on my phone and it pops up the next suggested word, is that AI edited? And no, I don't have to reply to a post, but when I think it's a bad policy, should I just accept it without discussion? And who determines the "experts/insiders" and which voices should be allowed?
  - I_dream_of_Geni 7mo ago
    Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
- nobody9999 7mo ago
  >Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine. As Isaac Asimov pointed out[0]: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” This thread runs through many cultures and isn't just a problem on the Internet, although the Internet certainly has accelerated/worsened the problem. And it has created a distrust of experts which (as has been obvious for a long time) has made us, as a whole, dumber and less informed. I recommend The Death of Expertise[1] by Tom Nichols for a sane and reasonable treatment of this issue. If books aren't your thing, Nichols did a book talk[2] which lays out the main points he makes in the book. During that talk, he also gives the best definition of disinformation I've heard yet. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/84250-anti-intellectualism-has-been-a-constant-thread-winding-its-way-through https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/84250-anti-intellectualism-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise [2] https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-death-of-expertise/474987 https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-death-of-expertis...
  - rendleflag 7mo ago
    Again, the question is who blesses the expert? There’s a difference in having a voice and your voice being taken seriously. If someone posts a link on a a new laptop, who should respond? I am not an expert on the current laptop market, but I have options about it. Maybe my English is not the best so I run through an AI to clean it up of ambiguities or wrong wording. Maybe I say “I like to take my laptop from behind” when I meant “I lift my laptop from the back”. An AI could point out this type of error.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
bigfishrunning 7mo ago
Yes. That's what the rule is about.
- yellowapple 7mo ago
  Then that's a dumb rule. God forbid someone wants to auto-correct one's own grammar in a comment before posting it.
  - bigfishrunning 7mo ago
    You're absolutely right! It's not the people correcting their Grammer that are the motivation for this rule, it's the people abusing these tools and ruining every online discussion with cookie-cutter comments. In all seriousness, if you use some tool to make sure you're using the right "there", noone will mind. Just don't generate another boring predictable comment and everything will be ok
  - duskdozer 7mo ago
    If you look at what you wrote and can't identify what rules you've broken, how are you able to validate that the AI output doesn't change the meaning of what you wrote?
    - yellowapple 7mo ago
      Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”. Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
      - duskdozer 7mo ago
        >Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”. That's fair. >Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote? I think what I wanted to get at is more like this: 1. I think that they may be part of the meaning 2. I think that people would be primed to accept changes even if they change the meaning 3. I suspected that it would always correct something and wouldn't just say LGTM even if the input was fine To check, and at the risk of this being hypocritical, I asked for a grammar correction on part of your post that I thought had no mistakes, and both in context and isolation, it corrected "spat out" to "produced." Now, this isn't a huge deal, but it is a loss of the connotation of "spat out," which is the phrasing you chose. I think grammatical errors are low-cost, and changes in meaning and intent are high-cost, so with 2. above, running it through an LLM risks more loss than it gains.

What constitutes “at edited”. If I throw a block of text in to an ai see if it makes sense — say a response to a post — and fold the suggestions in, is that “ai edited”?

ASalazarMX 7mo ago

Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.

rendleflag 7mo ago
It can catch things that I might miss or might be misinterpreted. I sometime miss simple things, like like repeated words, that an AI point out. Is a spell checker considered "AI"? Is Grammerly? Okay, maybe Grammerly from 5 years ago as opposed to today? If I'm typing on my phone and it pops up the next suggested word, is that AI edited? And no, I don't have to reply to a post, but when I think it's a bad policy, should I just accept it without discussion? And who determines the "experts/insiders" and which voices should be allowed?
- I_dream_of_Geni 7mo ago
  Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
nobody9999 7mo ago
>Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine. As Isaac Asimov pointed out[0]: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” This thread runs through many cultures and isn't just a problem on the Internet, although the Internet certainly has accelerated/worsened the problem. And it has created a distrust of experts which (as has been obvious for a long time) has made us, as a whole, dumber and less informed. I recommend The Death of Expertise[1] by Tom Nichols for a sane and reasonable treatment of this issue. If books aren't your thing, Nichols did a book talk[2] which lays out the main points he makes in the book. During that talk, he also gives the best definition of disinformation I've heard yet. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/84250-anti-intellectualism-has-been-a-constant-thread-winding-its-way-through https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/84250-anti-intellectualism-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise [2] https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-death-of-expertise/474987 https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/the-death-of-expertis...
- rendleflag 7mo ago
  Again, the question is who blesses the expert? There’s a difference in having a voice and your voice being taken seriously. If someone posts a link on a a new laptop, who should respond? I am not an expert on the current laptop market, but I have options about it. Maybe my English is not the best so I run through an AI to clean it up of ambiguities or wrong wording. Maybe I say “I like to take my laptop from behind” when I meant “I lift my laptop from the back”. An AI could point out this type of error.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

bigfishrunning 7mo ago

Yes. That's what the rule is about.

yellowapple 7mo ago
Then that's a dumb rule. God forbid someone wants to auto-correct one's own grammar in a comment before posting it.
- bigfishrunning 7mo ago
  You're absolutely right! It's not the people correcting their Grammer that are the motivation for this rule, it's the people abusing these tools and ruining every online discussion with cookie-cutter comments. In all seriousness, if you use some tool to make sure you're using the right "there", noone will mind. Just don't generate another boring predictable comment and everything will be ok
- duskdozer 7mo ago
  If you look at what you wrote and can't identify what rules you've broken, how are you able to validate that the AI output doesn't change the meaning of what you wrote?
  - yellowapple 7mo ago
    Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”. Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
    - duskdozer 7mo ago
      >Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”. That's fair. >Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote? I think what I wanted to get at is more like this: 1. I think that they may be part of the meaning 2. I think that people would be primed to accept changes even if they change the meaning 3. I suspected that it would always correct something and wouldn't just say LGTM even if the input was fine To check, and at the risk of this being hypocritical, I asked for a grammar correction on part of your post that I thought had no mistakes, and both in context and isolation, it corrected "spat out" to "produced." Now, this isn't a huge deal, but it is a loss of the connotation of "spat out," which is the phrasing you chose. I think grammatical errors are low-cost, and changes in meaning and intent are high-cost, so with 2. above, running it through an LLM risks more loss than it gains.