> > If I was a non-native speaker, I would use AI tools to clean up my writing. Does this mean I’m cheating? Of course not, the ideas are still my own.
> No, the ideas are not your own. They're a combination of yours and the AIs (which is a combination of millions of other people's ideas really), just as they are for anyone who writes a prompt. The fact that you aren't a native English speaker, or that you're using AI for 'good', are irrelevant. If you use AI to produce content of any sort you have to accept that you are not really the author. You just wrote the prompt.
I heavily dislike this judgement, mainly from the implications that the LLM's inputs & outputs cannot be related to one another, and the intentional disconnection of the author's initial efforts in creating the text that is fed into the LLM from the LLM's output, even if the result is a better rewording of the author's own words.
> The fact that you aren't a native English speaker, or that you're using AI for 'good', are irrelevant.
Not a fan at the attempted dehumanization of the person in question. It highlights a paternalistic attitude towards non-native English speakers that their usage of such a tool is immoral.
> If you use AI to produce content of any sort you have to accept that you are not really the author. You just wrote the prompt.
This is a reductionist take on the relationship between the LLM's inputs & outputs, reducing & dehumanizing the person as nothing but an 'input provider'. An LLM can only go as far as what's been given to it throughout the session, with the person in question still being the one supplying the goal & directions that they want to go towards. This is not an answer that can be reduced to a binary: At best, it can only be reduced to a series of continuous values between the extremes, with both ends being 'entirely from LLM' & 'entirely from author'.
> No, the ideas are not your own. They're a combination of yours and the AIs (which is a combination of millions of other people's ideas really), just as they are for anyone who writes a prompt. The fact that you aren't a native English speaker, or that you're using AI for 'good', are irrelevant. If you use AI to produce content of any sort you have to accept that you are not really the author. You just wrote the prompt.
I heavily dislike this judgement, mainly from the implications that the LLM's inputs & outputs cannot be related to one another, and the intentional disconnection of the author's initial efforts in creating the text that is fed into the LLM from the LLM's output, even if the result is a better rewording of the author's own words.
> The fact that you aren't a native English speaker, or that you're using AI for 'good', are irrelevant.
Not a fan at the attempted dehumanization of the person in question. It highlights a paternalistic attitude towards non-native English speakers that their usage of such a tool is immoral.
> If you use AI to produce content of any sort you have to accept that you are not really the author. You just wrote the prompt.
This is a reductionist take on the relationship between the LLM's inputs & outputs, reducing & dehumanizing the person as nothing but an 'input provider'. An LLM can only go as far as what's been given to it throughout the session, with the person in question still being the one supplying the goal & directions that they want to go towards. This is not an answer that can be reduced to a binary: At best, it can only be reduced to a series of continuous values between the extremes, with both ends being 'entirely from LLM' & 'entirely from author'.