I think this particular quick take would have benefitted from being shorter—for example just the first two paragraphs get across your main point. Maybe another sentence to represent the corollary point about chilling effects for other AI users. I don’t mean all posts should be bulletpoints, just that I often see AI written content which was clearly generated based on a few bulletpoints worth of info, and would have been better off remaining as such (not sure your post was in that category, it was well received as it was).
I’d always recommend custom prompting your AI, it does a lot to make the tone more sensible, and can work well to force it to be concise especially.
BTW- The current rough plan is not to ban AI content and indeed to evaluate it based on its merits. I’m mostly wondering what to do about the middle ground content which is valuable, but a bit too taxing for the reader purely because it is written by AI.
I appreciate that you have a different judgment call regarding conciseness. When I was reviewing it, I thought there were a number of distinct points that warranted discussion: initial observation re celebrated comments criticizing AI, discussion of the process and counterfactual, isolated demand for rigor, effect of criticism in chilling contributions, illustration of this chilling, and the point that we should evaluate based on quality, not provenance or process.
I am glad that the plan is not to categorically ban AI content, but creating a extra scrutiny on the grounds of moderation (de jure, rather than de facto disparate treatment) does not make much sense to me.
On second thought, AI significantly reduces the costs for the writers and in the pure human context, the costs for the writer are something of a safeguard against the overproduction of bad content (i.e., if the writer wastes the readers’ time, he/​she is wasting their own). I would still think a light touch would be prudent, given how effective AI can be to help proliferate good ideas/​insights.
I think this particular quick take would have benefitted from being shorter—for example just the first two paragraphs get across your main point. Maybe another sentence to represent the corollary point about chilling effects for other AI users. I don’t mean all posts should be bulletpoints, just that I often see AI written content which was clearly generated based on a few bulletpoints worth of info, and would have been better off remaining as such (not sure your post was in that category, it was well received as it was).
I’d always recommend custom prompting your AI, it does a lot to make the tone more sensible, and can work well to force it to be concise especially.
BTW- The current rough plan is not to ban AI content and indeed to evaluate it based on its merits. I’m mostly wondering what to do about the middle ground content which is valuable, but a bit too taxing for the reader purely because it is written by AI.
I appreciate that you have a different judgment call regarding conciseness. When I was reviewing it, I thought there were a number of distinct points that warranted discussion: initial observation re celebrated comments criticizing AI, discussion of the process and counterfactual, isolated demand for rigor, effect of criticism in chilling contributions, illustration of this chilling, and the point that we should evaluate based on quality, not provenance or process.
I am glad that the plan is not to categorically ban AI content, but creating a extra scrutiny on the grounds of moderation (de jure, rather than de facto disparate treatment) does not make much sense to me.
On second thought, AI significantly reduces the costs for the writers and in the pure human context, the costs for the writer are something of a safeguard against the overproduction of bad content (i.e., if the writer wastes the readers’ time, he/​she is wasting their own). I would still think a light touch would be prudent, given how effective AI can be to help proliferate good ideas/​insights.