I appreciate the honesty, Leana!
For the time being, we're rewarding and curating these posts, but I'm going to put this up for community discussion, since I had planned to do so before anyway, haha.
In particular, I'd like to ask @josephsavage (who runs the HSBI program) - what do you think of rewarding HSBI for this level of AI usage in writing?
I don't have a problem with AI usage. I don't believe in tilting at windmills, and it will become increasingly impossible to effectively or accurately detect AI usage.
I should mention that the duly elected 'cop on the beat' thinks they can identify and DV content that is generated using AI tools. I am not aware of community consensus ever being reached on the topic, and I consider it to be an expansion of their scope that is not in the original remit.
I can't stop them from doing it, but I did withdraw my support of their funding proposal because of their expansion of scope without community discussion.
Greatly appreciate your input, Joseph! Now I'm wondering about another scenario: what if a written article is completely AI-generated, as per admission of the author?
I've seen arguments that because the topic or idea is still thought of by the author, the resultant content is still technically original and theirs to claim ownership. The counterargument would be that they contributed very minimally to the output - and in academic settings, this is not considered valid original work.
People who make the argument that AI users contributed minimally to the output have never tried to create content using AI that is anywhere near publication ready.
Two scenarios:
Anybody that is able to pass content as their own without it being obvious that it was AI-generated put a lot more work into it than most of the human-created content on Hive receives.
I've tried to use AI to create content because I don't actually enjoy writing that much. But I have standards, and creating content I would sign my name to is harder with AI than it is to just write it myself.
Very interesting! I've never tried it myself, so this was quite revelatory to read. Thanks for the insight.
I'm going to put this up for a community vote this month.
@jfuji you may find this interesting.
@leana-ramen possibly the best approach would be for you to include a higher proportion of your original writing, similar to the 2nd scenario that Joseph presented here, and just include the disclaimer that you used AI to enhance your grammar, spelling, word choice, etc. I don't think anybody but the most stringent critics would hold this against you.
Well it seems it is in general not accepted at all, all my posts are downvoted and my reputation is gone. I would prefer to talk before acting.
That was more than likely due to Hivewatchers, judging by the votes on your posts. The account is run by a serial abuser on this platform who consistently goes beyond the purview of what the program is supposed to do on the platform. Unfortunately they targeted you this time, and they've previously targeted some new members within my group. I wouldn't remain hopeful that this individual would stop their abusive practices.
I hope you're not completely discouraged from posting! You're producing content that nobody else has produced before. These are still your ideas, and to some degree, your writing, and there's great value to this.
Thank you for the nice words. I am still considering if this is the right platform for me