Not so sure there is an agenda behind it. Everyone is just adapting to a new technology and discovering how they feel about it. Like everything, there is a lot of nuance. But my biggest issue with AI writing is when the AI voice overshadows the human voice. It may be good writing, but it’s not their writing. When it feels impersonal then it makes it harder to connect with. Yours does not feel like AI at all
Thanks, Adrian. As I said, my writing is human, but I use AI as an editor, and that also is considered a "no-no," which I find really crazy.
The reason I say the agenda is behind it is that all of a sudden everyone is overwhelmingly concerned with transhumanism, really?? Give me a break. The masses care about little other than their instant gratification; they have never cared about art, or about "humanism"...this has been one of the biggest problems we face today. And, suddenly, overnight, they give a crap about whether a human wrote a book or not? I don't buy it...
For many it’s not so much about the art, but a perceived threat to what it means to be human. There’s a lot of uncertainty and that can manifest in some extreme opinions. Personally, I feel conflicted about it all. I use AI extensively in my work , but have chosen not to use it in my writing.
Being human is defined in other ways…other than arti, writing, etc. And even if it were defined this way, humans will still be able to express in those media. The problem will come in when we have to tell what is human and what isn’t. It will be interesting to see what happens. Still, humans has slowly let their humanity fade away through technology…so maybe this will be the last straw…
The are many lines being challenged about what it means to be human — apart for basic biology there isn’t one set definition. Even with that, advances in biotech will cause us to question what level of hybridisation crosses the line where someone can still be considered human.
The question of what makes us human is rapidly becoming more and more relevant. It will most likely divide into different and competing view points (as we are already seeing with LLM use)
1. There is profound difference between writing only by person and any other case. It is.
2. Why to use AI to write or even edit posts?
3. Of course "war on..." - you can put whatever you want here - is a tool against (people?). So war against ai writing would be performed in a way to hurt those who write manually, to push them out or make them to use AI, so stream of communication will wither or be contaminated by AI.
I don't know much about AI, but I think there is a big difference between having AI check out what YOU write for grammar, spelling... and asking AI to "write an article about whatever".
When I worked in the faculty of a health sciences university several years ago, sometimes students would ask some program (they did not call it AI then, but I believe that was what it was) to write a paper about a subject, to cover an assignment. Most of the time, we (the teachers) were able to detect that our student had not written the work. There are strict rules againt this, also against plagiarism, in the academic setting.
Never even crossed my mind that Shrew Views could be written by AI. If Grok checks your grammar and spelling, or references, I could not care less. Keep it up.
Wow! I didn't even know that this was an issue. I thoroughly enjoy your very interesting and informative writing. I don't give a fuck if you use AI to edit. And why can't AI say Fuck? That's so fucked!
I was annoyed by the so called “corrections” it made for me when texting. I want my text message to be what I am thinking in my head not what the phone thought I meant. I always try to pre read a text before I send it and if by chance a word gets “corrected” wrongly I most always have to go back and correct it myself. I hate for someone to think I wrote that. Hmmmm
This is for simple trivial communications to everyday chatter.
I don’t really see a difference in using AI vs another human to “proofread” its the changes in objective or truthfulness.
By changes I mean when I see an article written about something I am familiar with and well informed about I see it misrepresented or falsely stating something. Thats what bothers me.
And worse yet when I see the comments written believing what they just read as fact.
I have found so far that it’s fairly easy to pick out what was written by AI.
Visual AI is another sore thumb with me when people believe it’s real.
It’s the dumbing down of our minds that scares me the most about AI.
I had learned to use a thesaurus when I was very young and feel that has been my AI to help me. By using it I have learned more words.
Using AI to correct or change doesn’t help my brain to learn more.
Now if I were to write a book I might consider having AI as a backup proofreader but I would always be sure it sounded like me and the corrections were legit.
Maybe if I used AI this might have been written more structured. Haha
I am not against AI but I don’t like it taking away from humans using their own minds to write.
Good article and please don’t stop writing however you do it. I know the thoughts are coming from a human being. You have so much food for thought.
I don’t just use it to proofread, I use it as a content editor. I gave an example in the article. I also use it to look up stuff like, “What did Trump say last week about Iran?” Or I ask it for statistics…nothing more than a glorified Google search. You should take your comment above and copy and paste it into Grok, or Chat or Claude, and ask, “please clean this up if any grammar issues or awkward sentences” and see what it comes up with. It would probably be minimal. Certain changes Grok might make I will change back, or redo myself, if it doesn’t sound like me, or what I think is funnier or makes more sense. And as I said, it makes very few changes, if any. And they are very minimal…change the position of a word, or make a long sentence into two….
I honestly do not know enough about AI writing to make much of a comment here but what I can say Todd is I understand your frustration if your writing is truly your own and accusations say otherwise. Keep writing. We can't give in to their bullshit.
It would be an interesting exercise to run writings from a previous era in which AI did not exist, through the artificial intelligence police and see what it spits out.
I hear lots of people are doing this with their own writing, and AI is coming back saying “this is AI generated”…for writing done 20 years ago. It is all bullshit. If you are a good writer to begin with, the detectors falsely believe you are AI.
Not so sure there is an agenda behind it. Everyone is just adapting to a new technology and discovering how they feel about it. Like everything, there is a lot of nuance. But my biggest issue with AI writing is when the AI voice overshadows the human voice. It may be good writing, but it’s not their writing. When it feels impersonal then it makes it harder to connect with. Yours does not feel like AI at all
Thanks, Adrian. As I said, my writing is human, but I use AI as an editor, and that also is considered a "no-no," which I find really crazy.
The reason I say the agenda is behind it is that all of a sudden everyone is overwhelmingly concerned with transhumanism, really?? Give me a break. The masses care about little other than their instant gratification; they have never cared about art, or about "humanism"...this has been one of the biggest problems we face today. And, suddenly, overnight, they give a crap about whether a human wrote a book or not? I don't buy it...
For many it’s not so much about the art, but a perceived threat to what it means to be human. There’s a lot of uncertainty and that can manifest in some extreme opinions. Personally, I feel conflicted about it all. I use AI extensively in my work , but have chosen not to use it in my writing.
Agreed with all of that!
Being human is defined in other ways…other than arti, writing, etc. And even if it were defined this way, humans will still be able to express in those media. The problem will come in when we have to tell what is human and what isn’t. It will be interesting to see what happens. Still, humans has slowly let their humanity fade away through technology…so maybe this will be the last straw…
The are many lines being challenged about what it means to be human — apart for basic biology there isn’t one set definition. Even with that, advances in biotech will cause us to question what level of hybridisation crosses the line where someone can still be considered human.
The question of what makes us human is rapidly becoming more and more relevant. It will most likely divide into different and competing view points (as we are already seeing with LLM use)
I don't get it. But:
1. There is profound difference between writing only by person and any other case. It is.
2. Why to use AI to write or even edit posts?
3. Of course "war on..." - you can put whatever you want here - is a tool against (people?). So war against ai writing would be performed in a way to hurt those who write manually, to push them out or make them to use AI, so stream of communication will wither or be contaminated by AI.
Again, writing is not the only expression of being human. And even AI was human created…it is complicated for sure.
WITCH! 😁
Moi??
I don't know much about AI, but I think there is a big difference between having AI check out what YOU write for grammar, spelling... and asking AI to "write an article about whatever".
When I worked in the faculty of a health sciences university several years ago, sometimes students would ask some program (they did not call it AI then, but I believe that was what it was) to write a paper about a subject, to cover an assignment. Most of the time, we (the teachers) were able to detect that our student had not written the work. There are strict rules againt this, also against plagiarism, in the academic setting.
Never even crossed my mind that Shrew Views could be written by AI. If Grok checks your grammar and spelling, or references, I could not care less. Keep it up.
Thanks…
Same as Peggy, I didn’t know this was an issue either.
It is a strange one for sure…
Wow! I didn't even know that this was an issue. I thoroughly enjoy your very interesting and informative writing. I don't give a fuck if you use AI to edit. And why can't AI say Fuck? That's so fucked!
AI even says fuck….fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck….
Since having a smartphone “AI”
I was annoyed by the so called “corrections” it made for me when texting. I want my text message to be what I am thinking in my head not what the phone thought I meant. I always try to pre read a text before I send it and if by chance a word gets “corrected” wrongly I most always have to go back and correct it myself. I hate for someone to think I wrote that. Hmmmm
This is for simple trivial communications to everyday chatter.
I don’t really see a difference in using AI vs another human to “proofread” its the changes in objective or truthfulness.
By changes I mean when I see an article written about something I am familiar with and well informed about I see it misrepresented or falsely stating something. Thats what bothers me.
And worse yet when I see the comments written believing what they just read as fact.
I have found so far that it’s fairly easy to pick out what was written by AI.
Visual AI is another sore thumb with me when people believe it’s real.
It’s the dumbing down of our minds that scares me the most about AI.
I had learned to use a thesaurus when I was very young and feel that has been my AI to help me. By using it I have learned more words.
Using AI to correct or change doesn’t help my brain to learn more.
Now if I were to write a book I might consider having AI as a backup proofreader but I would always be sure it sounded like me and the corrections were legit.
Maybe if I used AI this might have been written more structured. Haha
I am not against AI but I don’t like it taking away from humans using their own minds to write.
Good article and please don’t stop writing however you do it. I know the thoughts are coming from a human being. You have so much food for thought.
I don’t just use it to proofread, I use it as a content editor. I gave an example in the article. I also use it to look up stuff like, “What did Trump say last week about Iran?” Or I ask it for statistics…nothing more than a glorified Google search. You should take your comment above and copy and paste it into Grok, or Chat or Claude, and ask, “please clean this up if any grammar issues or awkward sentences” and see what it comes up with. It would probably be minimal. Certain changes Grok might make I will change back, or redo myself, if it doesn’t sound like me, or what I think is funnier or makes more sense. And as I said, it makes very few changes, if any. And they are very minimal…change the position of a word, or make a long sentence into two….
I honestly do not know enough about AI writing to make much of a comment here but what I can say Todd is I understand your frustration if your writing is truly your own and accusations say otherwise. Keep writing. We can't give in to their bullshit.
Thank you.
I feel the same.
It would be an interesting exercise to run writings from a previous era in which AI did not exist, through the artificial intelligence police and see what it spits out.
Try this one.
https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/sayers-lost/sayers-lost-00-h.html
I hear lots of people are doing this with their own writing, and AI is coming back saying “this is AI generated”…for writing done 20 years ago. It is all bullshit. If you are a good writer to begin with, the detectors falsely believe you are AI.