Good morning, I'd like to understand something. What is the goal?
Avoid articles written entirely by bots?
Verify that there's a human behind a text?
Evaluate whether an idea was born from a brain or an algorithm?
Because I think they are completely different situations.
I agree 100% with the first. Dev.to should rightly be a platform for humans, with their experience, their weaknesses, their mistakes, and their great ideas.
But today, AI has become part of our work; it's a useful tool for speeding up our daily tasks when used correctly.
I started using it late because I'm an "old-school" technician; you can check that in my bio. I'm Italian, and for years, I struggled to understand a language full of difficult terms for me, but little by little, with patience, I got there. Now that my career is on hold, I wanted to share my experiences, but if technical language was difficult, "communicating" is much more difficult. Expressing concepts and using idioms would be impossible for me without the help of an LLM. Believe me, every idea, every post I've written or will write comes from my mind. I normally write in Italian and use Google Translate to create the outline and organizational flow of my ideas, and I use AI to make them accessible in a language that is effectively the standard in our industry.
I think I, like many others whose stories and comments I enjoy reading, am in my situation.
Let's not start a "witch hunt" for a problem that perhaps isn't one.
What's the solution? Honestly? I don't know. Mine is just a reflection. Thanks for your attention.
Marco
Your 3 questions are the ones nobody has cleanly separated in this thread until now. And you're right that they require completely different answers . a bot farm posting at scale is a platform integrity problem. A non-native speaker using AI to express ideas that are genuinely theirs is a communication tool problem. Someone laundering AI-generated ideas as original thinking is a trust problem. The same Sloan message gets sent for all 3 which means the policy is solving one problem while producing collateral damage on the other 2.
Your situation specifically is the one that makes me most uncomfortable about where this is heading. The ideas are yours. The language barrier is real. The tool bridges the gap. That's not what anyone meant when they said "AI-generated content" but it's what the classifier sees.
Thanks for writing this. It's the reflection the thread needed.
I agree with you, Marco. I see it very much the same way.
I raised this exact concern before in some of @francistrdev posts where this topic was being discussed. I think there's a big difference between publishing content generated by AI and using AI as an assistant to help communicate ideas that genuinely come from a human.
So I'm also curious about the actual goal of this rule.
Good morning, I'd like to understand something. What is the goal?
Because I think they are completely different situations.
I agree 100% with the first. Dev.to should rightly be a platform for humans, with their experience, their weaknesses, their mistakes, and their great ideas.
But today, AI has become part of our work; it's a useful tool for speeding up our daily tasks when used correctly.
I started using it late because I'm an "old-school" technician; you can check that in my bio. I'm Italian, and for years, I struggled to understand a language full of difficult terms for me, but little by little, with patience, I got there. Now that my career is on hold, I wanted to share my experiences, but if technical language was difficult, "communicating" is much more difficult. Expressing concepts and using idioms would be impossible for me without the help of an LLM. Believe me, every idea, every post I've written or will write comes from my mind. I normally write in Italian and use Google Translate to create the outline and organizational flow of my ideas, and I use AI to make them accessible in a language that is effectively the standard in our industry.
I think I, like many others whose stories and comments I enjoy reading, am in my situation.
Let's not start a "witch hunt" for a problem that perhaps isn't one.
What's the solution? Honestly? I don't know. Mine is just a reflection. Thanks for your attention.
Marco
Your 3 questions are the ones nobody has cleanly separated in this thread until now. And you're right that they require completely different answers . a bot farm posting at scale is a platform integrity problem. A non-native speaker using AI to express ideas that are genuinely theirs is a communication tool problem. Someone laundering AI-generated ideas as original thinking is a trust problem. The same Sloan message gets sent for all 3 which means the policy is solving one problem while producing collateral damage on the other 2.
Your situation specifically is the one that makes me most uncomfortable about where this is heading. The ideas are yours. The language barrier is real. The tool bridges the gap. That's not what anyone meant when they said "AI-generated content" but it's what the classifier sees.
Thanks for writing this. It's the reflection the thread needed.
I agree with you, Marco. I see it very much the same way.
I raised this exact concern before in some of @francistrdev posts where this topic was being discussed. I think there's a big difference between publishing content generated by AI and using AI as an assistant to help communicate ideas that genuinely come from a human.
So I'm also curious about the actual goal of this rule.
posts written by AI are not being read. No point in posting them.