I also completely understand their reasoning behind this. I think Substack as a community has a great fear of Ai posts turning the site into slop, which has happened on LinkedIn.
I do find it troublesome though, particularly for cases like yourself, none native English speakers. As well as for individuals whose writing skills are not great but still have interesting ideas that they want to share, and for the most part, I may want to hear.
I think potentially both sides could be satisfied, if the detection tool was looking more for original thought, and value in the work it scans (something that could be done, and with a lower carbon footprint). We’re then provided with a score, that’s potentially tailored to the individual reader’s interests. Although there are other potential dangers with that also!
If it’s any consolation, it found every chapter of my 2004 PhD dissertation to be Ai.
Excellent points!! Ai is here to stay! For non native speakers it is a great help, more even if one is dyslexic ... like me). Perhaps our challenge is to write content that is so unique, that it reveals our singular intelectual contributions.
I find that it is essential, to command the machine "do not add adjetives" "do not editorialize". Then carefully revise that the text in your non-native language really shows your personality, you insight into the topics ... Just my 0.02 Best José
Well said, Pe. It's absolutely bonkers that the percentages differ so much by just changing one or two things like an emoji and a video. I loved how you framed this in terms of your views on AI in general, the practical use you benefit from, the reliability of AI detection scanners, and the fuckery and noise that can really distract us from the joy of writing. Bravo.
Bravo Pe. Substack needs to make shutting this off a global setting so it need be done only once. I don't use AI. It never would had occurred to me you did. So this human reads you as 100% human. Checking grammar is no different than editing tools.
Well said, and I feel your pain.
I also completely understand their reasoning behind this. I think Substack as a community has a great fear of Ai posts turning the site into slop, which has happened on LinkedIn.
I do find it troublesome though, particularly for cases like yourself, none native English speakers. As well as for individuals whose writing skills are not great but still have interesting ideas that they want to share, and for the most part, I may want to hear.
I think potentially both sides could be satisfied, if the detection tool was looking more for original thought, and value in the work it scans (something that could be done, and with a lower carbon footprint). We’re then provided with a score, that’s potentially tailored to the individual reader’s interests. Although there are other potential dangers with that also!
If it’s any consolation, it found every chapter of my 2004 PhD dissertation to be Ai.
I wonder what AI would do with mine from 1987 ;-) ;-)
Excellent points!! Ai is here to stay! For non native speakers it is a great help, more even if one is dyslexic ... like me). Perhaps our challenge is to write content that is so unique, that it reveals our singular intelectual contributions.
I find that it is essential, to command the machine "do not add adjetives" "do not editorialize". Then carefully revise that the text in your non-native language really shows your personality, you insight into the topics ... Just my 0.02 Best José
Well said, Pe. It's absolutely bonkers that the percentages differ so much by just changing one or two things like an emoji and a video. I loved how you framed this in terms of your views on AI in general, the practical use you benefit from, the reliability of AI detection scanners, and the fuckery and noise that can really distract us from the joy of writing. Bravo.
Bravo Pe. Substack needs to make shutting this off a global setting so it need be done only once. I don't use AI. It never would had occurred to me you did. So this human reads you as 100% human. Checking grammar is no different than editing tools.
That's so weird, how you get a different number each time