Reality Check publishers-dont-use-ai-detection-tools/

[Peyton Stafford]

See

Publishers, Don’t Use AI Detection Tools! - The Scholarly Kitchen

The challenges offered by artificial intelligence require a different approach than that seen for plagiarism detection.

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

 

[James Charles]

See

Publishers, Don’t Use AI Detection Tools! - The Scholarly Kitchen

The challenges offered by artificial intelligence require a different approach than that seen for plagiarism detection.

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

Interesting. I think terminator (skynet) will be after us soon.

 

[Hannah F]

A couple of private schools in England (I don't know about other schools in other places) are actively encouraging pupils to incorporate AI as a tool when doing assignments. Their logic is that pupils already "cheat" by using AI for homework, so now it's time to embrace the technology, change the type of assignments given and teach them how to use it to their learning advantage rather than use it to replace learning.
I understand the logic. So glad I'm not one of the teachers who has to implement it or mark pupil assignments.

 

[Brooke]

ack, these attempts to detect AI scare me-- for my own sake as a younger writer. if i were a publisher or an agent who'd just received a full manuscript written by a kid, my first thought would unfortunately, but realistically, be that it was written with AI. and the fact that there's not really a way to prove whether something was or wasn't AI-generated is probably the most frightening part of all of this. what are legitimate writers to do?

 

[Bloo]

The gatekeepers may need to take a more active role here. Think about it. If agents or publishers deploy AI to try to root out AI, won't they become the thing they are trying to fight?

Remember the April Huddle? Most of us were able to divine carbon from silicon. Some of us were even able to figure out who the human writer was.

I think a 15 minute Zoom would do a lot to root out the fakes. I can imagine a short interview going down like, "What were you thinking when you wrote this scene?", "Did you base so-and-so character on a real person?", " How did you research this location?", etc.

Finally, we each have a voice that oozes into our work. The words we use and how we use them irl should line up with that.

We've entered a brave new world. If pubs and agents aren't vetting promising clients with even a brief F2F, maybe they should start.

 

[AgentPete]

These advancements highlight a potential path forward where AI aids rather than hinders academic writing.

I think as soon as possible, we all need to step back, take a few deep calming breaths, and try to work out exactly what impact, negative or positive, AI may have on all forms of writing.

It’s really hard to achieve that sort of level perspective at the moment, the hype is overwhelming.

 

[LJ Beck]

"AI writing, on the other hand, is original in its own right (even if drawn from unoriginal sources), and can’t be easily traced to its source." - Therein lies the rub!

What I find super scary about AI assistance is that I don't know what its sources are. When I do research, I know where I'm getting my info from, and the overall vibe of the source. Do I trust this source, do I think it shares my values? But who's to say with AI? It might be (probably is, at least sometimes anyway) drawing from some sources I'd find despicable or damaging. It's assuming all sources are created equal. Or maybe not even, depending on it's programming. Makes me shiver.

And now AI tools to detect AI content? What the hell is going on?

 

[Eva Ulian]

If you think you can trust AI, ask it to produce your BIO.