The sentiment is true - my employer is heavily adopting AI in our processes and we haven’t fired anyone, nor are we going to. We don’t have the numbers to lose, and everyone who’s using AI in their role wants to, because it’s improving our output.
But this article was written by AI and prompted by someone who didn’t try to improve its writing. Therefore I’m not interested in reading it. Why would I read a slop article from someone else, rather than having my own assistant compile a better one?
Do you want Shakespeare to write news articles?
I think you mean to ask
Do you seriously have standards for what you read?
And… yes, yes I do.
What kind of standards do you have?
Personal ones. If I had to distill it here, I require that my prose be varied but sensible (e.g. breaks the rules for readability, never egregiously), with no formula, no waffle words, and no meaningless sentences. Tropes can be fine but only used sparingly, naturally, and absolutely not always in the same place. Reading level should be collegiate, but not doctoral, and industry terms should be defined on first use. These are stylistic questions shaped by years of reading professional authors and no AI has any idea how to do that out of the box. Reading what most people put out with AI, I can see the patterns like repeating textures, and it grates on my optic nerves.
I’m making progress on that with mine, but it’s a tough problem. Needs manual tweaking even after multiple rounds of automated revision.
That’s tough dawg. Nobody writes articles like that these days. :(
I would like my news articles to be read by the people who wrote them, yes.
How do you know the author didn’t read the article before handing it to the publication employees?
The author might even have read it after handing over a copy.
But that doesn’t make, the “people who wrote them” having ‘read the articles’, because the “author” in this case is more like an “Editor”.
Fair. There’s definitely a point to be made about what truly authoring an article is.
