1. because your belief that AI-generated text is worse than human written text is flat out illogical and wrong.
2. judge content not by its cover and think.
back
2 comments
>judge content not by its cover and think
If we are supposed to not judge the content by its cover, then don't put a cover on it. It's that simple. AI adds no value to the content, just some noise that makes it harder to reach the actual information/emotion.
what do you even mean to "not put a cover" on it, everyone communicates differently. Your comment here puts on a "snide, snarky, trying to be smart but failing" cover that I have discarded because your idea may have some merit to be discussed on.
>everyone communicates differently
Yes, and those differences have an intrinsic value. As an example, my comment's "cover" communicates my discontent and frustration with "AI tone". As a matter of fact, my "cover" here became the discussion itself. Thus, my comment's "cover" is not actually a cover but a part of the communication. In contrast, the "AI tone" is just a cover to make a writing look superficially more professional without adding any value to the communicated idea or emotion.
> my "cover" here became the discussion itself
My "cover" is good because of X, their "cover" is bad because of Y, is not a helpful analogue nor a useful one.
I do not have unlimited time. If enough of this community flags an article as low caliber AI, that is useful to me. The whole idea of a site like this is that the community IS judging the content at some level to up/down vote.
Outsourcing your ability to think to "the community" is pretty much the same as handing it over to AI. AI is trained on the community. Argumentum ad populum.