I appreciate this stance, Hadden. This part holds weight: “And if you can’t trust me and my writing without a tool’s help, then I don’t know why you are reading my words in the first place.” Trust is a risk, but a wholly important part of human relationship.
I agree with every word of this. Using AI in order to say one is not using AI is obviously absurd – is so obviously a waste of water and electricity. It's a waste of the literal space required to house the data centres that power AI. That space would be much nicer if it was left as 'wasteland' (of course there's no such thing), if it was left as 'weeds' (again, there's no such thing).
Good point. I find that the AI detection tools don’t really detect. I use AI just to edit grammar and sometimes it suggests better wording. I insert the cleaned up sentence and “whola” the AI detector still says 100% human. Go figure. I also stopped typing articles. I hand write the article and then and use AI to do a transcription. It saves time and handwritten is way better for being concise and well thought out.
I agree with every one of your points, especially that about trust. I also think that Substack is betraying us - those of us who came to this platform to do serious writing free of the crap on other platforms - by announcing a "tool" after it's already been applied. (It did the same with the audio device which I cannot determine how to shut off.) I found a wonderful community of poet and essayists here but if Substack continues to put writers at risk as it is doing with this AI device, I will leave. No writer should have to prove he or she is "for real". It's disgusting.
Great words and fantastic stance. Those using AI to audit writings are committing the same error as those who use AI to produce writings. AI is merely moving from the role of author to editor.
Yes, exactly, this was the thing that tipped the scales for me. I felt I couldn't say I am writing AI free if I am essentially editing/checking against AI and allowing it to dictate what I can and cannot say.
Is the detection tool enabled by default? Think I’m out of the loop!
I’m against it as well, for the reasons you mentioned. I’ve already been on the receiving end of such a witch hunt and it made me overthink my writing too much — does that mean I write too “inhuman”? Is it too faceless and generic? Too boring and uninspiring? Too many em dashes or “not this, but that” style of writing? All of it is exhausting! I just want to write 😅
It is enabled by default. Before you post a piece you have the option of disabling it, but this needs to be done for every post. There is no way of turning it off by default.
I appreciate this stance, Hadden. This part holds weight: “And if you can’t trust me and my writing without a tool’s help, then I don’t know why you are reading my words in the first place.” Trust is a risk, but a wholly important part of human relationship.
The machine can’t provide solutions to the machine
Let your yes be yes, and your no be no
Anything beyond this . . .
Exactly!
I agree with every word of this. Using AI in order to say one is not using AI is obviously absurd – is so obviously a waste of water and electricity. It's a waste of the literal space required to house the data centres that power AI. That space would be much nicer if it was left as 'wasteland' (of course there's no such thing), if it was left as 'weeds' (again, there's no such thing).
Indeed, the substantial sustainability concerns were also a deciding factor. I don't want to feed the beast to prove I have not fed the beast.
"I don't want to feed the beast to prove I have not fed the beast." Yes exactly!
Good point. I find that the AI detection tools don’t really detect. I use AI just to edit grammar and sometimes it suggests better wording. I insert the cleaned up sentence and “whola” the AI detector still says 100% human. Go figure. I also stopped typing articles. I hand write the article and then and use AI to do a transcription. It saves time and handwritten is way better for being concise and well thought out.
I agree with every one of your points, especially that about trust. I also think that Substack is betraying us - those of us who came to this platform to do serious writing free of the crap on other platforms - by announcing a "tool" after it's already been applied. (It did the same with the audio device which I cannot determine how to shut off.) I found a wonderful community of poet and essayists here but if Substack continues to put writers at risk as it is doing with this AI device, I will leave. No writer should have to prove he or she is "for real". It's disgusting.
Great words and fantastic stance. Those using AI to audit writings are committing the same error as those who use AI to produce writings. AI is merely moving from the role of author to editor.
Yes, exactly, this was the thing that tipped the scales for me. I felt I couldn't say I am writing AI free if I am essentially editing/checking against AI and allowing it to dictate what I can and cannot say.
Is the detection tool enabled by default? Think I’m out of the loop!
I’m against it as well, for the reasons you mentioned. I’ve already been on the receiving end of such a witch hunt and it made me overthink my writing too much — does that mean I write too “inhuman”? Is it too faceless and generic? Too boring and uninspiring? Too many em dashes or “not this, but that” style of writing? All of it is exhausting! I just want to write 😅
It is enabled by default. Before you post a piece you have the option of disabling it, but this needs to be done for every post. There is no way of turning it off by default.
Ah, good to know.
Great take, Hadden. It seems like a solution that causes more problems, particularly from a social lens.
Developing a network of (real) people you trust is the model of sanity and humanity going forward.
Hear, hear!