Judging content on the grounds of its source of generation is what I call the grandma mentality.
I use AI to generate outlines, summaries, introductions, conclusions, correct grammar and create better sentence structure. All in all, it helps me improve my writing, create better content for my readers and enhance my productivity. I see no wrong in that. Will continue using AI and in fact, increase its usage more to make myself a better creator. My intent is not to abuse, just to create high-quality content and educate others.
We were already using Grammarly, aren't we? We also use editing programs to do the stuff for us quickly.
So now if someone is using AI to create valuable content, then why discourage its usage?
Although I understand that some will simply generate articles with a click of a button and try to abuse the reward pool. That's a no-no and we must stop that. But if someone is genuinely using AI to create high-quality output in less amount of time, then I will only support them. Not discourage them from leveraging this new tech.
Yep.
That's the whole issue. Grammarly is not the issue.
Intent is everything. Most of the AI stuff I see clearly INTENDS to abuse.
Thanks for understanding River. Wherever money is involved, most people would choose to abuse the power they have. That's a short-term mindset.
We can do better and educate on AI's correct usage. I am ready to take on that challenge. It's going to be interesting.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The road to hell...
Guessing someone's motives can be dangereous, but I do know what you mean, sometimes, maybe usually abuse looks like abuse.
I know it all might get better, but a long boring flow of words is unlikely to get a lot of attention
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You are not doing it right @whatsup. if we want creative outputs, we need to give creative inputs. xD
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Hey! I resemble that remark.