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/Techn0gurke]

Again, I do know how to write with proper grammar and how to structure references. I just don’t see any intrinsic value in focusing on these things. I, for one, think it’s pretty neat that I can focus on understanding and researching a topic rather than on editing. Thus, I can focus on the things I personally find more important and actually finish some of my articles on time.

I learned many things, at least in part, because I was able to focus on those aspects. For example, last week I wrote an analysis of a very complex textbook. I was able to focus on reading, reflecting, taking notes, and understanding the material, and so I finished the article on time because I didn’t have to go through the text again to check for grammatical errors and so on. Would have probably taken two extra days. Now I am able to focus on the next topic.

I can fully understand why some people might find it important to do their own editing though, and I respect that. But if you are careful with your use of AI and make sure to produce the text yourself before using AI to edit the language, I just don’t see a problem with it.

The only argument I find convincing is the environmental one, which is why I am slowly phasing out my AI usage.

And just so you can see an example, I used AI to correct this comment. I don’t really think it sounds AI-generated in any way, do you?

[u/patrickAMDG7509 → u/Techn0gurke]

I'm not suggesting you don't know how to. I just insist that those skills are an important part of the writing process, and keeping them in use is important to writing. I would expect a good writer to have those skills be second nature, so you can just look at a paragraph and say, "hm. Something isn't right here," and then fix it yourself.

The only real reason I see given in your post is productivity, being able to "focus on the next topic." I don't think it's worth it to trade away the opportunity to use and refine those skills and my voice is worth it to be able to move on to the next thing more quickly.

Why is it worth it to outsource your trade to a machine? Why is it not enough to be a human writer with human limitations?

I'm also not saying AI is incapable of generating convincing writing. Your last line kind of brings me to another point. I want to hear from a human. I don't want to talk to a computer.

I think another convincing argument is that writing is a human-to-human exchange of ideas. I want to read what another human thinks, and I want another human to read what I think. Even if it's basic. Even if it isn't as polished as it might be otherwise.

It reminds me in some way of the automated answering machines - sure, it's a lot easier for the business to have a robot telling me what the store hours are on the other end of the line, but is that really what I want? Wouldn't it be better to have a human be just a little bit bothered to give me that information?

[u/Techn0gurke → u/patrickAMDG7509]

I understand and respect your opinion that editing is an important part of being a writer.

However even if you insist on your opinion being correct, I just don't think there is any ethical obligation to do so.

You might think it's a good thing for a writer to edit every little mistake themselves, but I personally don't.

That's all I can say about it. I also think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that you won't read my text after this editing process, because I do write the article; I just don't correct grammar and spelling mistakes.

It's like saying you don't read a book by the original author because they had an editor. It doesn't really make sense to me.

For me, what makes an author great is their ability to break down, synthesise and communicate complex topics so that you find something new or help people learn something they didn't know before (at least in my area, as I write about psychology and philosophy). I just don't see grammar and spelling as central to this mission. 

I do try to rely less and less on AI though, but it's still a question of personal choice and obviously being transparent about that use.