> I don't think the root post here should be flagged really.
If you're referring to my post ...then of course I agree with you!
I should clarify that I am in no way whatsoever opposed to AI usage. I use it all day, every day like most of us here and, if we are doing labels now, then I guess I would consider myself generally AI-positive.
What I don't like is when people use AI to produce low-effort content, and then package it in such a way that it masquerades as high-effort content. Of course what is low-effort or what is high-effort are highly subjective. But publishing an article that has your name at the top, it's written in the 1st person, and yet it's very obviously 100% copy/pasted AI output -- this falls on the wrong side of ethical for me.
I suppose OP could put "AI-generated" or some such disclaimer on the article. But I would rather people just revise the output, actually engage with what they're creating before they dump it on the rest of us.
If you're referring to my post ...then of course I agree with you!
I should clarify that I am in no way whatsoever opposed to AI usage. I use it all day, every day like most of us here and, if we are doing labels now, then I guess I would consider myself generally AI-positive.
What I don't like is when people use AI to produce low-effort content, and then package it in such a way that it masquerades as high-effort content. Of course what is low-effort or what is high-effort are highly subjective. But publishing an article that has your name at the top, it's written in the 1st person, and yet it's very obviously 100% copy/pasted AI output -- this falls on the wrong side of ethical for me.
I suppose OP could put "AI-generated" or some such disclaimer on the article. But I would rather people just revise the output, actually engage with what they're creating before they dump it on the rest of us.