Who wants to read something written by a bot? People want to read what you wrote, not what a bot did.
Actually, people usually want to read good content. Writing should be enjoyed for it's quality, not for the attributes of it's authors.
Also, these seemingly helpful AI tools tend to propagate homogeneity, bias, and academic dishonesty.
Humans are just as capable of doing the same (in fact, more capable). AI can even be used to combat this.
The AI tools aren't "seemingly" helpful. They are helpful, but like some other helpful things, there are ethical considerations.
You can view AI like a tool - for instance, a hammer. A hammer has great potential for good; we can use it to make building projects much easier. A hammer also has great potential for bad. We could use the hammer as a harmful weapon, hurting people or destroying property with it.
We shouldn't regulate the tool, but we should regulate the use of the tool. We have laws against violence but no laws against hammers.
In the case of AI, it think that it is good to respect people's preferences about what they choose to read - it would be wise to tag AI written content as AI written, and, if possible, disclose the AI model that wrote it as well.
Side note: There are actually more reasons than people's preferences to tag AI content as AI generated. The tag is also very useful for companies training new AI models. Training AI models on their own output is very unproductive. So when it is easy to avoid AI content in training data, it is easier to train new AI models as well.
The use of artificial intelligence, specifically generative AI, promotes homogeneity, bias, and even academic dishonesty, and thus it should not be used in an educational or professional environment.
That statement is a form of hasty generalization. It makes a broad claim that generative AI will produce negative outcomes in educational or professional environments. This generalization is formed without consideration for the various contexts in which AI could be used positively or the diversity of AI applications.
Well, I could go on. 🤪 But I'm done for now...
P.S. Your writing style is great. I love a lot of your articles, so I followed you. 🙂
Perhaps I am different from the vast majority of people, but if I want to read about someone's project, experience, or just their advice, I don't want it to be AI generated. If I want to read "good content" (which from context I'll assume that that means informative and well written content), I'll go to Wikipedia, get a book, or hey, there's always documentation!
Humans are just as capable of doing the same (in fact, more capable).
Absolutely. But at least I'll know that it's a human doing that, and not a program regurgitating what it's seen on the internet. On that note, AI can be wildly inaccurate and all the things that I mentioned in my original post. I would personally rather research and curate my own writing for errors and whatnot than research and curate something that a bot wrote.
As for your analogy with a hammer, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it directly applies to this situation. It's much easier to moderate a hammer; you either are breaking something, or you aren't. It's a much grayer line when it comes to AI stuff.
I like your idea about respecting peoples preferences. If Dev.to does go the route of not completely banning AI generated content, I would certainly like to see something like this be implemented.
That statement is a form of hasty generalization.
That's what a thesis statement is. You make a general claim on a topic, then proceed to defend and argue your position throughout your essay.
Anyways, thank you for commenting. I think you and I have very different opinions on how best to handle AI generated content -- which is fine, frankly. We wouldn't get anywhere if we all agreed with each other. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time that you took to write this, and good night!
Again, there's a lot of “I would personally” in this. DEV is a community; everyone has their own ways of writing and creating good content. I respect your preferences and can very much understand if you don't like to read AI content or write with AI — but that does not me that we should enforce our preferences on others.
Most analogies have flaws. AI and writing are certainly more complex than a hammer. But just because it's harder to moderate bad content than it is bad actions doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that is not the best route.
A thesis statement is not a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is a fallacy, where the conclusion is based on insufficient or non-representative evidence. A thesis statement is a sentence or two that clearly express the main point or argument of a piece of writing.
I appreciate your opinion and thorough response as well! Thanks for responding.
DEV is a community, and more so, I would generally consider it to be a blogging community. In that, I don't think AI generated content belongs here, regardless of preference. I understand where it can come in handy -- a specific example that comes to mind is breaking language barriers. When I originally wrote this, I was not aware of some of the benefits, and now that I am, I'm willing to be a bit more relaxed with what I advocate for when it comes to AI guidelines. But nevertheless, I don't think most of DEV wants to read what a bot wrote. You're welcome to put a poll out though (actually if you want to, I would totally help you promote it. I'm curious as well)!
As for the thesis statement, I still stand by my original claim that it is not a hasty generalization (according to Purdue). I backed up all of the claims made in the statement with what I believe to be plenty sufficient evidence. Additionally, this paper was peer reviewed (when it was in the original "paper" form, that is. Nothing big changed when I posted it here, just the structure), and I'm fairly confident that a fallacy like this would've been caught. Nevertheless, I'd like to move on from this. We both have better things to do than worry about whether a thesis statement is a fallacy or not :).
Thank you for responding, and I also appreciate your opinion and thorough response!
Actually, people usually want to read good content. Writing should be enjoyed for it's quality, not for the attributes of it's authors.
Humans are just as capable of doing the same (in fact, more capable). AI can even be used to combat this.
The AI tools aren't "seemingly" helpful. They are helpful, but like some other helpful things, there are ethical considerations.
You can view AI like a tool - for instance, a hammer. A hammer has great potential for good; we can use it to make building projects much easier. A hammer also has great potential for bad. We could use the hammer as a harmful weapon, hurting people or destroying property with it.
We shouldn't regulate the tool, but we should regulate the use of the tool. We have laws against violence but no laws against hammers.
In the case of AI, it think that it is good to respect people's preferences about what they choose to read - it would be wise to tag AI written content as AI written, and, if possible, disclose the AI model that wrote it as well.
Side note: There are actually more reasons than people's preferences to tag AI content as AI generated. The tag is also very useful for companies training new AI models. Training AI models on their own output is very unproductive. So when it is easy to avoid AI content in training data, it is easier to train new AI models as well.
That statement is a form of hasty generalization. It makes a broad claim that generative AI will produce negative outcomes in educational or professional environments. This generalization is formed without consideration for the various contexts in which AI could be used positively or the diversity of AI applications.
Well, I could go on. 🤪 But I'm done for now...
P.S. Your writing style is great. I love a lot of your articles, so I followed you. 🙂
Thank you for the compliment and the follow!
Perhaps I am different from the vast majority of people, but if I want to read about someone's project, experience, or just their advice, I don't want it to be AI generated. If I want to read "good content" (which from context I'll assume that that means informative and well written content), I'll go to Wikipedia, get a book, or hey, there's always documentation!
As for your analogy with a hammer, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it directly applies to this situation. It's much easier to moderate a hammer; you either are breaking something, or you aren't. It's a much grayer line when it comes to AI stuff.
I like your idea about respecting peoples preferences. If Dev.to does go the route of not completely banning AI generated content, I would certainly like to see something like this be implemented.
Anyways, thank you for commenting. I think you and I have very different opinions on how best to handle AI generated content -- which is fine, frankly. We wouldn't get anywhere if we all agreed with each other. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time that you took to write this, and good night!
Again, there's a lot of “I would personally” in this. DEV is a community; everyone has their own ways of writing and creating good content. I respect your preferences and can very much understand if you don't like to read AI content or write with AI — but that does not me that we should enforce our preferences on others.
Most analogies have flaws. AI and writing are certainly more complex than a hammer. But just because it's harder to moderate bad content than it is bad actions doesn't mean we shouldn't try or that is not the best route.
A thesis statement is not a hasty generalization. A hasty generalization is a fallacy, where the conclusion is based on insufficient or non-representative evidence. A thesis statement is a sentence or two that clearly express the main point or argument of a piece of writing.
I appreciate your opinion and thorough response as well! Thanks for responding.
DEV is a community, and more so, I would generally consider it to be a blogging community. In that, I don't think AI generated content belongs here, regardless of preference. I understand where it can come in handy -- a specific example that comes to mind is breaking language barriers. When I originally wrote this, I was not aware of some of the benefits, and now that I am, I'm willing to be a bit more relaxed with what I advocate for when it comes to AI guidelines. But nevertheless, I don't think most of DEV wants to read what a bot wrote. You're welcome to put a poll out though (actually if you want to, I would totally help you promote it. I'm curious as well)!
As for the thesis statement, I still stand by my original claim that it is not a hasty generalization (according to Purdue). I backed up all of the claims made in the statement with what I believe to be plenty sufficient evidence. Additionally, this paper was peer reviewed (when it was in the original "paper" form, that is. Nothing big changed when I posted it here, just the structure), and I'm fairly confident that a fallacy like this would've been caught. Nevertheless, I'd like to move on from this. We both have better things to do than worry about whether a thesis statement is a fallacy or not :).
Thank you for responding, and I also appreciate your opinion and thorough response!
Ah, but just because a majority doesn't like something doesn't mean we should squash them. :)
Of course, DEV is a blogging community. AI can be used to blog.
Anyway, I'm trying really hard not to address other things you said. 🤪 🤣
I agree. We can move on, for sure! Look forward to seeing your future articles. :D