[ElProlactin]

> If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain.

First, it's not a good look to start off your rebuttal with an ad hominem. Based on the high standards you speak to in your post, and your concern about reputations, I would have expected more.

> I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically.

To play the role of cynic, what does "AI adjacent to my writing" even mean? You wrote in your post:

> If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all.

Who decides if your "adjacent" use of AI was deep or meaningful? You wrote:

> Unless I know exactly how you did that work– which would have to have been from personal observation– I can’t know the truth.

You're admitting that you use AI but only "adjacent to [your] writing". Even if you explain what that means, how can I trust you? I wasn't there to personally observe how you used AI.

If you consult with AI in any fashion to flesh out an idea, test your arguments, etc., someone with an even more extreme position could say, "Well, even if he wrote the words, AI must have influenced his writing in some way, perhaps even unconsciously, and therefore everything he wrote is tainted."

[satisfice]

It's not a good look to start a comment with any variation of "you're being rude," either. So I guess both of us are prickly?

You misunderstood my blog post in an odd way that's hard for me to account for unless you just didn't read carefully. Hence, my annoyed quip.

I wrote in my policy, referred to in the post, that I never have AI draft anything for me. But I was quite explicit that I may use AI to aid my research in various ways-- just as I use Google search and other tools. I might create a monte carlo simulation to test my understanding of probability before making a bold pronouncement about statistical matter, too.

So, what I mean by adjacent is "next to" but not "on top of" or "inside." That's what most people mean by adjacent. I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.

[ElProlactin]

> I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.

Let's walk through this very carefully.

Your post states:

> If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all. Unless I know exactly how you did that work– which would have to have been from personal observation– I can’t know the truth.

Now let's look at your policy, which states:

> I allow myself to use AI to help develop or critique ideas or to critique text. I hate to be wrong. If AI can help me be less wrong, I welcome it. Although I always start with my own ideas, I might ask AI to challenge those ideas, or independently research the topic. I would then look over its work and decide if I want to cover a new topic or angle that the AI may have indicated.

> I might also ask AI to review the final text and spot typos or sloppy writing. In other words, I can use AI the same way I would let a human colleague help me write a piece for which I would nevertheless declare myself sole author.

Do you not see the problem here? You admit that you use AI as a stand-in for a human editor. You admit that you use AI to "help develop or critique ideas or to critique text". You admit that you use AI to do research. You even admit that this process might lead you to decide "to cover a new topic or angle that the AI may have indicated."

Do you not believe that some of this falls afoul of your own standard ("if AI deeply collaborates with you to write something...")? If you don't, please explain why you believe AI helping you develop and critique your ideas and text is not "deep" collaboration. And please explain how anyone reading your work, without the "personal observation" you referred to in your post, would know how much influence your use of AI had on the words you wrote.

[solid_fuel]

> First, it's not a good look to start off your rebuttal with an ad hominem. Based on the high standards you speak to in your post, and your concern about reputations, I would have expected more.

This is such a lazy and tired way of talking around someone. You started off with a rude, dismissive statement which was intended to cause offense. Now that offense was taken and returned, you’re playing the “you aren’t being polite enough” game.

It’s transparent, and you are not entitled to politeness.