That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality.
> you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world
As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget.
Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish?
> I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers.
I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless.
That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea.
I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
"Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
It's possible for the ideas to come from the author while the writing is outsourced to someone else. Ghostwriting is an established practice.
Effort involved in writing sounds a lot like the "sweat of of the brow" doctrine, which is rejected even by copyright monopolists.
I can sympathize with the notion that AI writing currently sucks, but not that it's automatically invalid or deserving of mockery. Maybe one day we'll have far better models. Maybe they'll do a good job without inserting any load-bearing vocabulary.
Asking for the prompts is fine, but might not be sufficient. The process iterative, and may incorporate data that won't be published. For example, I recently published a Sol/Fable benchmark article. It would be trivial for anyone to prompt a new version of the article if they had the raw benchmark data, but this data will never be published.
It's gonna be a no brainer for a lot of people.