Applying extra scrutiny to AI generated text is entirely rational, and I encourage people to continue doing so. It used to be that if a text was long and structured, that you could be assured that the writer had some familiarity with the topic they were writing on, and that they had put some degree of intellectual effort and rigor into the article.
With content written in the AI tone, that is no longer the case: we can’t tell if you put in lots of thought and rigour into the article, or if you just threw a 10 word prompt into chatGPT and copy pasted what it said.
The internet is currently being flooded with AI spam that has zero substance or value, but is superficially well written and structured. It is your responsibility to distinguish yourself from the slop.
I agree that using AI flavor as a means to determine whether content is worth further consideration makes sense. If AI flavor is a strong proxy for garbage, than it makes sense to consider stop reading after you detect AI flavor
What does not make sense is, after you have decided to read and evaluate the content, to designate it inferior simply because of the process that generated it. This is essentially pure prejudice.
An example would be: I evaluated X content and determined Y deficiencies. Because I believe the content was entirely human-generated, I assess these deficiencies as relatively minor. Alternatively, I evaluated A content and determined B deficiencies which are substantially similar to Y, but because I suspect that the content was AI generated, I place greater weight on said deficiencies.
Applying extra scrutiny to AI generated text is entirely rational, and I encourage people to continue doing so. It used to be that if a text was long and structured, that you could be assured that the writer had some familiarity with the topic they were writing on, and that they had put some degree of intellectual effort and rigor into the article.
With content written in the AI tone, that is no longer the case: we can’t tell if you put in lots of thought and rigour into the article, or if you just threw a 10 word prompt into chatGPT and copy pasted what it said.
The internet is currently being flooded with AI spam that has zero substance or value, but is superficially well written and structured. It is your responsibility to distinguish yourself from the slop.
I agree that using AI flavor as a means to determine whether content is worth further consideration makes sense. If AI flavor is a strong proxy for garbage, than it makes sense to consider stop reading after you detect AI flavor
What does not make sense is, after you have decided to read and evaluate the content, to designate it inferior simply because of the process that generated it. This is essentially pure prejudice.
An example would be: I evaluated X content and determined Y deficiencies. Because I believe the content was entirely human-generated, I assess these deficiencies as relatively minor. Alternatively, I evaluated A content and determined B deficiencies which are substantially similar to Y, but because I suspect that the content was AI generated, I place greater weight on said deficiencies.