I wrote this: There are people who do not have English as their first language. So using AI to write is ok, but they should indicate it? vs entirely AI generated without human review is slop. But then non-native English speakers can scribble ideas and get it structured with AI. That is actually good for both sides as it makes the communication better!
AI rewrote this: Some people don’t speak English as their first language. Using AI to write is fine but they should indicate it. However, entirely AI-generated content without human review is poor. Conversely, non-native English speakers can jot down ideas and have them structured with AI. This benefits both parties as it improves communication.
Now the latter is considered entirely AI generated? Did the rewrite actually help or you like to read the raw version I wrote? Which feels good to read?
Personally I prefer the former. It was plenty readable.
Regardless, this use case (ESL) is exactly why I prefer to have submission titles be marked as AI generated instead of "flagged". My hope is that submissions that are marked "AI generated" lose popularity and encourage people to write with their own words, even if the result isn't perfect.
While I second that, Im not convinced that the quality of the content is altered by use (or not) of AI.
A click-bait for brainless content will not stick long on the front page anyhow.
If legit contributors feel more comfortable with AI reviewing their posts, I think that is fair. And I'd rather read a structured post instead of fuzzy ideas.
I wrote this: There are people who do not have English as their first language. So using AI to write is ok, but they should indicate it? vs entirely AI generated without human review is slop. But then non-native English speakers can scribble ideas and get it structured with AI. That is actually good for both sides as it makes the communication better!
AI rewrote this: Some people don’t speak English as their first language. Using AI to write is fine but they should indicate it. However, entirely AI-generated content without human review is poor. Conversely, non-native English speakers can jot down ideas and have them structured with AI. This benefits both parties as it improves communication.
Now the latter is considered entirely AI generated? Did the rewrite actually help or you like to read the raw version I wrote? Which feels good to read?
Personally I prefer the former. It was plenty readable.
Regardless, this use case (ESL) is exactly why I prefer to have submission titles be marked as AI generated instead of "flagged". My hope is that submissions that are marked "AI generated" lose popularity and encourage people to write with their own words, even if the result isn't perfect.
While I second that, Im not convinced that the quality of the content is altered by use (or not) of AI.
A click-bait for brainless content will not stick long on the front page anyhow.
If legit contributors feel more comfortable with AI reviewing their posts, I think that is fair. And I'd rather read a structured post instead of fuzzy ideas.