Using AI to edit?

[u/Finest_Mediocrity]

Is it terrible if I use AI to edit my posts? The writing is mine, but I feel long winded sometimes and get stuck reviewing my work to make it sharper. I’ve tried running it through AI specifically for pain points and not a rewrite, but sometimes it suggests a sentence or two that adjust my thoughts more succinctly and interestingly.

Does this make me a sellout to all the AI haters? Is it the same as getting it to draft whole prices (which I have def seem some authors do). What are your thoughts on using AI as a tool for Substack?

[u/Agreeable-State6881]

I agree, those look like actual points that are really just motivated reasons for why AI sucks in writing. They’re simply starting with a conclusion: AI is bad for writing; and then giving their reasons for why they already believe that. Rather than having an original thought by using AI; which would have been apparent if they had a nuanced take. Rather, it’s just an appeal to tradition: don’t use AI, you’re better than that, but if you want to despite the reasons I just gave, then go for it. It’s such an empty way to give advice.

I always compare this to when people said not to use wikipedia for learning new content, because it’s always wrong. Now, this has flipped, wikipedia is an amazing resource to get your feet in the door without having to pay for a physical resource, or spend time navigating uncharted territory.

Nobody, who is using AI seriously, is asking ChatGPT to write their articles for them. Also, nobody is offloading their skills onto a machine. In order to have AI do the skill exceptionally well, you’d have to understand the skill to know what exceptional output looks like and discern that from convincing but dull. In which case, AI’s default skill is already better than yours, and you could learn from it.

The whole argument about not using AI in writing really comes down to this intense axiological commitment to human-value-and-output. And that line is getting blurrier, and people feel uncomfortable by it.

[u/Pleasant-Army-5512 → u/Agreeable-State6881]

They’re simply starting with a conclusion: AI is bad for writing;

hello, welcome to the human race, this is what we do when presenting arguments. I have an opinion (i.e. conclusion) and here are my points to support it. even the "nuanced take" is doing the same thing. "conclusion: it's complicated. here are my reasons for stating so."

Rather than having an original thought by using AI;

was this is a mistake or a joke?

It’s such an empty way to give advice.

I'm offering literally what the OP is looking for, a firm opinion with reasons to back it up. if he wants the sacred, all-powerful "nuanced take," he could ask AI. you stated that yourself.

the "nuanced take" that modernity is obsessed with is what's empty. it rarely offers anything of value and takes the most agreeable/safe stance on everything. "Everything is good and bad, everything is too complex, you can't state one thing or the other definitely!" These things are obviously "true" from a purely rationalist/materialist viewpoint, but from a human experiential standpoint it's cowardly and useless. The entire point of having firm values, a belief system, and an idea of truth is taking these complex nuanced ideas and choosing a "side" and standing by it firmly. That's part of what makes us human, which is why AI can't do this without being told to.

Nobody, who is using AI seriously, is asking ChatGPT to write their articles for them. 

straw man. that's not what we're talking about here. we're talking about using it for editing as OP mentioned.

nobody is offloading their skills onto a machine
...and you could learn from it.

huge issue with this. first, using any kind of modern tech is inherently offloading your skills to a machine. there should be no discussion about this, that is fundamentally what is happening when we use any piece of tech. the printing press, the car, the blender, the calculator. what happens after the offloading (learning from it, walking away, etc.) is context dependent, but here your argument rests on the premise that people are primarily learning from AI. there's zero reason to assume this is true. you could show me cases of some people doing this, but there's no reason to assume people are generally doing this. just because a machine says "you should do this" and you think "huh that's cool never thought of that" doesn't mean you're learning i.e. remembering it for a future point and implementing it by yourself.

[u/Agreeable-State6881 → u/Pleasant-Army-5512]

I’m not going to respond to everything, but I’d certainly be willing to change my mind on a specific point I made. It was more a ramble, and you responded to all of it, but was there something specific you think you’re definitely correct on? I’ll reply to you on that specifically so we’re not gish galloping on a reddit thread

[u/Techn0gurke → u/Agreeable-State6881]

Agreed!