Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was AI-assisted is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand
Saying the article was AI assisted is also wrong. Current consumer models can read a vehicle user manual in moments and indicate probable writing errors. This article had a few stylistic errors (or choices) that were irrelevant, except to prove the author is human. If he/she had used AI even in an assistive manner, knowing the nitpicking behavior of the intended audience, it would have had none.
Also, the author’s other public writings have similar errors/choices in style. When “consumer AI” writes or rewrites, it’s impossible for it to mimic one’s writing style so similarly. Literally impossible, because it can’t disregard everything else that it “knows” (voluminous training, guardrails, interface design, social boundaries) for it to
1. Disregard all that training after processing the user’s prompt
2. output a complete article in the user’s style
3. Turn back on its knowledge
4. then continue to function.
That’s just not how consumer products work.
People think AI is a bad editor (I personally don't), here's your argument under a particularly harsh version of that framing:
Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was done by my 13 year old nephew is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand
Obviously, this doesn't work because the content is changing. Printing a piece vs writing it by hand doesn't change the content, only the medium of transmission.
Rather interesting than clanker slop defenders downplay the clanker aspect and highlight the human by calling it "ai-assisted", which defeats their entire point.
I hope you do some introspection and start consciously recognizing that the human input and the clanker slop is just debasing it.
Not just that, I think a lot of people are going to waste their time losing the battle (and make no mistake, they will lose) fighting against AI writing without ever asking themselves what makes writing good in the first place.
There’s good AI writing and bad organic writing. But it’s easier to point out a few LLM-isms than to actually identify the problems with text.
Sure, but the LLM-isms in AI writing are mentally exhausting to see in every way at this point.
The whole point of reading, frankly, is to understand the voice of other people. When you pass that through a distorted filter that makes everyone sound the same... its bad, lossy, frustrating communication
It's also dishonest. When you publish something that is direct output without your wording. Digital catfishing at best.
The only good AI writing is providing the prompt, because the question is way more interesting, and way more constructive to learning than the answer
The point of writing is to convey an idea to another person or yourself at a future date. Authenticity has nothing to do with it. I frankly do not care about the “authentic voice” of the author of a random blog. I want to know if they have any interesting ideas.
In that case, you can’t achieve that by writing things out by hand. A person could (and many do) use an LLM to generate an idea, then write it in their own voice. Or, they could use an LLM to write out an idea they came up with themselves.
In other words, since the idea generation component can completely independent from the writing component, what you’re asking is not possible in practice.
Also, the author’s other public writings have similar errors/choices in style. When “consumer AI” writes or rewrites, it’s impossible for it to mimic one’s writing style so similarly. Literally impossible, because it can’t disregard everything else that it “knows” (voluminous training, guardrails, interface design, social boundaries) for it to 1. Disregard all that training after processing the user’s prompt 2. output a complete article in the user’s style 3. Turn back on its knowledge 4. then continue to function. That’s just not how consumer products work.