It is AI-corrected, not generated. I have no problem admitting that I use ChatGPT to correct my English, as it is my third language. Just because something is AI-corrected doesn’t mean it was produced by AI. All my writings are AI-corrected. I have no affiliation with @super-agi. Even this post is AI-corrected. Regardless, you haven’t contributed anything meaningful to the conversation.
Everything of length you have posted smells of pure AI directed by nothing more than prompts, a chain of verbose platitudes that dissolves into fog on a close look. I would like to see some of your original writing alongside what you consider to be an AI “improvement” on it. I had rather see bad English written by a real person than anything from an AI.
I would like this to be an explicit rule on LessWrong: any post containing AI-generated, assisted, or “improved” content should identify it as such and state the role played by the AI.
It is AI-corrected, not generated. I have no problem admitting that I use ChatGPT to correct my English, as it is my third language. Just because something is AI-corrected doesn’t mean it was produced by AI. All my writings are AI-corrected. I have no affiliation with @super-agi. Even this post is AI-corrected. Regardless, you haven’t contributed anything meaningful to the conversation.
What part of your writings comes from you, and what part comes from the AI?
Everything of length you have posted smells of pure AI directed by nothing more than prompts, a chain of verbose platitudes that dissolves into fog on a close look. I would like to see some of your original writing alongside what you consider to be an AI “improvement” on it. I had rather see bad English written by a real person than anything from an AI.
It’d be wise to add a disclaimer to your posts saying clearly that it is ‘AI-corrected’.
I would like this to be an explicit rule on LessWrong: any post containing AI-generated, assisted, or “improved” content should identify it as such and state the role played by the AI.