thanks @Michael St Jules . I agree with those benefits but there’s no mention here of potential costs? Maybe you don’t think those are significant?
Its a completely different question but are you happy to receive 100% AI written grant application as well? And would you be happy on your grantmaker end to allow your own AI to review that application or would you insist on reading the whole thing yourself?
Just trying to prod a bit and see how far it goes...
Its a completely different question but are you happy to receive 100% AI grant application as well?
I’d prefer human-written applications, because it can be hard to distinguish ~100% AI-written but primarily using the applicants’ own ideas and reasoning from ~100% AI-generated, including writing, ideas and reasoning.[1] Grants are bets on the grantees’ abilities, not just the project idea. However, I tend to also talk to applicants over calls or in person, and see their work in other ways.
I can imagine for a project for which communication by the applicant is an important part of the project’s path to impact, if the application looks AI-written, I would ask them to resubmit or I would reject them, if and because the people the applicant would be communicating to dislike AI writing. This hasn’t come up yet, though.
And would you be happy on your grantmaker end to allow your own AI to review that application or would you insist on reading it yourself
At this point, I’d insist on at least personally reading parts that are enough to be decisive one way or the other.
Of course, this leaves another possibility (and others in between the different possibilities outlined so far, including no AI use): 100% of the ideas and reasoning come from AI, but the application is 100% written by the applicant. Hopefully by writing it themself, they’ve taken the time to understand what they’re submitting, but it would still be better if the ideas came from the applicant.
I agree with those benefits but there’s no mention here of potential costs? Maybe you don’t think those are significant?
If we’re assuming the post would be good quality, then I don’t expect the costs (to me) to be significant, but I’m open to reasons otherwise. If the posts are sometimes low quality or repetitive, then AI could enable more of them, and that would be bad. I’d lean towards allowing 100% AI written posts and seeing what happens to the EA Forum, i.e. tracking the results and reassessing.
Maybe the voting system, minimum karma to post, and throttling based on recent net negative karma posts/comments are enough to handle this without negatively affecting engagement. Banning 100% AI-written posts is a blunt tool, and it seems worth trying other things.
thanks @Michael St Jules . I agree with those benefits but there’s no mention here of potential costs? Maybe you don’t think those are significant?
Its a completely different question but are you happy to receive 100% AI written grant application as well? And would you be happy on your grantmaker end to allow your own AI to review that application or would you insist on reading the whole thing yourself?
Just trying to prod a bit and see how far it goes...
I’d prefer human-written applications, because it can be hard to distinguish ~100% AI-written but primarily using the applicants’ own ideas and reasoning from ~100% AI-generated, including writing, ideas and reasoning.[1] Grants are bets on the grantees’ abilities, not just the project idea. However, I tend to also talk to applicants over calls or in person, and see their work in other ways.
I can imagine for a project for which communication by the applicant is an important part of the project’s path to impact, if the application looks AI-written, I would ask them to resubmit or I would reject them, if and because the people the applicant would be communicating to dislike AI writing. This hasn’t come up yet, though.
At this point, I’d insist on at least personally reading parts that are enough to be decisive one way or the other.
Of course, this leaves another possibility (and others in between the different possibilities outlined so far, including no AI use): 100% of the ideas and reasoning come from AI, but the application is 100% written by the applicant. Hopefully by writing it themself, they’ve taken the time to understand what they’re submitting, but it would still be better if the ideas came from the applicant.
If we’re assuming the post would be good quality, then I don’t expect the costs (to me) to be significant, but I’m open to reasons otherwise. If the posts are sometimes low quality or repetitive, then AI could enable more of them, and that would be bad. I’d lean towards allowing 100% AI written posts and seeing what happens to the EA Forum, i.e. tracking the results and reassessing.
Maybe the voting system, minimum karma to post, and throttling based on recent net negative karma posts/comments are enough to handle this without negatively affecting engagement. Banning 100% AI-written posts is a blunt tool, and it seems worth trying other things.