Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 3
    Thanks. I think Tinkeringbell's argument is questionable because I specificially asked about rephrasing, not just about grammar and spell checking. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:15
  • 5
    @DocBrown Franck's answer quotes a source that says the same as I am trying to say though: " If the authors are not sufficiently fluent to notice when the generated output does not match their intended ideas, using such tools without further checking could yield worse results than simpler-but-more-accurate English." and "Using AI assistants for generating [..] new text is unacceptable.". The AI assitant when used as proposed in your question makes new text for you, and if you're not proficient enough to consider if that text matches your intended ideas, that backfires. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:24
  • 4
    @Tinkeringbell: I think I am not proficient enough in English to write as good as a native speaker, but I am quite proficient enough to validate if a text matches my intended ideas. That's the typical gap between passive and active knowledge of a language, and it applies to most people who know a foreign language. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:33
  • 5
    @Tinkeringbell You've cut out a critical part with the "[..]"; the full quote is: "Substantial. Using AI assistants for generating new ideas as well as new text is unacceptable." - OP's usage best matches "paraphrasing and refining" which they count as "insignificant" and "do not need any acknowledgement". When even generating literature review or description of well-known concepts is only counted as "low", there's no way OP's kind of grammar refinement would be considered "significant". Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:37
  • 3
    @DocBrown As I said to another commenter under my own answer, I'm not writing these answers just for you, the OP. If you are convinced you're wise enough to decide, then the first part of my answer applies to you: Yes, I count it as AI-generated content that needs attribution because the AI generates the entire content, and whether or not that should/shouldn't be allowed networkwide is not something that can be decided here on MSE. If you make mistakes though, don't blame the LLM. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:41
  • 4
    @SirBenet fair enough, here my non-native speaking got in the way a bit. I assumes 'as well as' was synonymous with 'or', but according to the dictionary it means 'in addition to'. I will still stick to my opinion that whatever an LLM like ChatGPT does though, is taking a prompt like 'rewrite this' and making some new text for you based on your prompt and whatever training data it has, and doesn't work like e.g. a human editor would, keeping all the source text and just suggesting/making needed changes, and as such whatever comes out a.) is AI-generated and b.) needs attribution. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 12:45
  • @Tinkeringbell: fair enough. Yes, I think attributition of "AI improved answers" should be mandatory. Under which constraints these answers are acceptable at certain sites is indeed something which should be discussed at the individual meta sites. Commented Jan 10, 2024 at 14:07