I'm just an average guy who literally started using AI two weeks ago just to help me with training to broaden my education and literally for writing.
The irony is unbelievable. I made a post on some findings I did about anomalies that I'm finding on an AI platform. And then on the post, it got tagged that AI or written entirely by... entirety by AI as if it was generated by AI. That's the feeling I got. How am I supposed to word something that's complicated? And as I noted in my post that I'm a layman, and I actually use AI to help me form sentences of the context of my ideas. That's ridiculous.
If I want to use the platform... AI platform to help me do my writing, doesn't that make sense that it would be written by AI?
Who gave the tag? The tag entire... entirety AI written. They want human to go over the paper itself or the post itself, and they're the ones that's claiming that it's entirety AI written. I highly, I highly doubt that.
That's my point. It's coming across as if, to me, as a layman user, that seeing "AI written" or "entirety AI written" means AI generated. But to make that claim, they used a tool that's non human.
I mean, it's like, come on, man. You're claiming something I did, right, that the entirety is AI written, but at the same time, you're using a tool. So what you should be doing is saying that a tool made the tag, not a human, or at the very least put that in a disclaimer because you're doing the same thing that I'm doing.
I understand that wording and structure, sentencing, formatting, drafting, all that matters. But in this case, the data outvalues the wording because it's the context of what I'm saying more so than using good kind words so it sounds impressive. So when you look at the first post, look at what the context is saying.
