Imagine being proud and ignorant enough to come out and admit to using AI to write for you. Incredible.
Authors who use AI should print the suffix “et a.i.” after their name on the cover.
Et tu, A.I??
- JuliAIus CAIesar
I mean, there is a huge difference between using ChatGPT for research and using it to actually write for you. Unless you speculate that he didn’t reveal an example of the latter out of fear, this isn’t as dramatic as the title sounds like.
Yes. A huge difference between hallucinating incorrect information that was stolen from actual creators and using it to write incorrect information stolen from actual creators.
If you were a writer and I helped you with research, e.g. I suggest an adjective to you at your request that you even dismiss after some pondering, then is it correct to say that you used me to write for you? Is it the same as if I was your ghostwriter?
My point is not that ChatGPT for research is awesome, but that the article’s headline and OP’s conclusion are very misleading. While I can relate to that enthusiasm, I don’t believe in mincing down a source to my narrative. It’s even counter-productive to spread awareness about ChatGPT’s incorrectness using an incorrect takeaway from someone’s statements…
“It’s useful to have immediate knowledge, but not unrestrained,” he said. “You’ve always got to judge what you’re being told, and also look for a second source. In the old days, I’d go to a library, I’d look up stuff in books. What’s the difference between using AI and going straight to the point?"
I’m not sure how i should think about the author repeatedly abdicating authorship to become a member the audience before the book is published.
Makes me want to re-think copyright, patents, trademarks, and registered anything.
What about research abdicates authorship?
Why wouldn’t he? Who doesn’t? “Using AI all the time” is not the same as “Chat, write a book, make it naughty but not too naughty”.
