| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels wrong. The truth is, "human generated" is kind of ... Airy.
Grammar checkers use AI, they help you find errors in your text, spellcheckers. At what point do we say "this is a step too far?"
I often used Chat-GPT as a way of bouncing ideas off of a "partner who listens" in a similar way that others have talked about "talking to a rubber ducky." Is that permitted, given that not a single bit of text that Chat-GPT generates is used, but it was part of the brainstorming process?
And the art, you do know that many of the professional tools that digital artists use employ AI. Maybe not the stable diffusion/midjourney tools that are getting press right now, but they do use AI. They're going to improve their tools constantly.
We're taking a stand to support "our fellow humans" but we're missing the point that the AI is a tool used by "fellow humans."
This feels similar to when gaming magazines would reject submissions from a word processor because they expected text written by "a human." If it's not a typewriter, how did they know that a computer didn't write it?
(and that's not some hyperbole, that is a thing that the gaming magazines did back in the day. Their adoption of Word Processors was definitely not a quick thing.)