This morning I read this on Rebecca K. Reynolds’s Substack, which struck me as balanced and sensible:
https://beccaberryquitecontrary.substack.com/p/a-brain-surgeon-a-rabbi-and-em-dash
There seem to be two equal and opposite reactions online to the use of AI: either embrace it (pretending it has not been used) or reject it completely (as a crime to be exposed). As with most black-and-white answers, neither quite reflects the world we actually find ourselves living in. The reality is more complex. AI is a tool, and one of its strengths is when it is used as a collaborator: a well-intentioned but honest critic or editor. It challenges our assumptions and exposes the gaps in our thinking. What it never was intended to be is a substitute for our own thinking or creative input. Rebecca’s suggested system would bring clarity and honesty. In its present form it is very subjective, but it is a start. We would know: 1) what AI did; 2) how much of the finished work it touched; and 3) how intensively it was used. The point is not to declare a piece good or bad, but to make the help visible—and so build trust. Having seen the passions this subject arouses online, I do wonder whether that is possible. (SN 2, WD3)
