or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
[ 2 minute read ]
Am I human enough now?
I have just been party to a conversation on why Grammarly indicates that an original piece written solely by a single real person (These days we have to prefix 'human' with 'real' to mean a human) has a substantial probability that it has been written by A.I.
My crikeyness! Pull yourselves together! Why would anyone use technology to check if they are human? Quite frankly, I ask myself why anyone would even consider using A.I assistance without recognising an inadequacy in themselves. If a researcher is paid to find stuff and they use A.I. assistance, then they are not doing their job. The whole world that has contributed to the vast information that is available to the A.I. search algorithm has done the job in collaboration with the A.I. tool. Wow! And there are actually people out there who are worried that they will lose their jobs to A.I. It is because they have been using A.I. generative text assistance to fool their bosses into thinking they were valuable employees. Strangely, their bosses have let them do this.
If I ever wrote a book and used Grammarly for some weird and unfathomable reason at ANY stage in the process whatsoever, I would need to include Grammarly as a collaboratoring author on the book cover otherwise I would feel like a fraud. The whole world would be entitled to a substantial share of the royalties.
In the conversation I overheard by dint of being able to read it online (I over-read it then) someone was bemoaning that in rewriting paragraphs, Grammarly A.I. checker came back with a higher and higher probability of it being written by A.I. Clearly, the more focus and skill that was put into the rewrites meant that the rewrites were better and better according to Grammarly A.I. checker.
'Oh woe!'
'Oh no! Your own writing is improving! What are you going to do?'
I think I might be able to see the wood in the forest because I don't rely on technology to help me think.
If Grammarly tells you that you are an A.I. assistive technology algorithm it is giving you a compliment; I am just wondering whether it flirts with really good writers. Let's all aim for Grammarly telling us that there is a 100% probability that the piece we have submitted is A.I. generated and then we know we don't need A.I. assistive technology for writing tasks, and we have returned to being a real human again, without technological mutant augmentation. Otherwise we are just one step away from being a Borg in the Star Trek series.
Am I human enough now?
All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
[ 2 minute read ]
Am I human enough now?
I have just been party to a conversation on why Grammarly indicates that an original piece written solely by a single real person (These days we have to prefix 'human' with 'real' to mean a human) has a substantial probability that it has been written by A.I.
My crikeyness! Pull yourselves together! Why would anyone use technology to check if they are human? Quite frankly, I ask myself why anyone would even consider using A.I assistance without recognising an inadequacy in themselves. If a researcher is paid to find stuff and they use A.I. assistance, then they are not doing their job. The whole world that has contributed to the vast information that is available to the A.I. search algorithm has done the job in collaboration with the A.I. tool. Wow! And there are actually people out there who are worried that they will lose their jobs to A.I. It is because they have been using A.I. generative text assistance to fool their bosses into thinking they were valuable employees. Strangely, their bosses have let them do this.
If I ever wrote a book and used Grammarly for some weird and unfathomable reason at ANY stage in the process whatsoever, I would need to include Grammarly as a collaboratoring author on the book cover otherwise I would feel like a fraud. The whole world would be entitled to a substantial share of the royalties.
In the conversation I overheard by dint of being able to read it online (I over-read it then) someone was bemoaning that in rewriting paragraphs, Grammarly A.I. checker came back with a higher and higher probability of it being written by A.I. Clearly, the more focus and skill that was put into the rewrites meant that the rewrites were better and better according to Grammarly A.I. checker.
'Oh woe!'
'Oh no! Your own writing is improving! What are you going to do?'
I think I might be able to see the wood in the forest because I don't rely on technology to help me think.
If Grammarly tells you that you are an A.I. assistive technology algorithm it is giving you a compliment; I am just wondering whether it flirts with really good writers. Let's all aim for Grammarly telling us that there is a 100% probability that the piece we have submitted is A.I. generated and then we know we don't need A.I. assistive technology for writing tasks, and we have returned to being a real human again, without technological mutant augmentation. Otherwise we are just one step away from being a Borg in the Star Trek series.