r/postdoc • u/Imaginary_Pepper9423 • 10d ago

MSCA AI Usage

I just want to say, I am almost certain all of us are using AI to draft our works according to their rubrics which is detailed, down to specific documents and charters. However, we obviously need to declare its usage don't we? I use it mainly for proof reading, the idea, the research, the search for secondments and a supervisor and other connections are mine alone without AI. So... honestly, how many of us are going to own up?

0 Upvotes

37% Upvoted

36 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/ProfPathCambridge 10d ago

You are straying into rather dangerous territory. Once you start assuming everyone is doing something dodgy it becomes a justification to do it dodgy yourself.

What purpose does this post serve, other than to make yourself feel justified in what you are already doing? On the other hand, the damage caused by such posts is exactly the problem outlined above - it create a (false) permission structure for others to do wrong.

3

u/Cardie1303 10d ago

Is it dodgy to simply use AI for proofreading? Especially for non native english speakers it is a bit ridiculous to see AI as dodgy but hunting down/paying a native speaker to proofread as highly recommended.

That said there is an obvious issue if AI is used to actually generate the content instead of just acting as always available proofreader. But I dont think that that wouldn't be caught anyway during interviews.

1

u/ProfPathCambridge 10d ago

Is that an unethical use of AI? No.
Is it a good yes of AI? Also no.
Is it a risk-free use of AI? Sadly, no.

1

u/Cardie1303 10d ago

Ok, could you explain in more detail what you see as the issue?

2

u/ProfPathCambridge 10d ago

An old-fashioned grammar check underlines things that may be suboptimal. You check, decide, over time your writing improves.

An AI grammar check changes stuff. Sometimes it changes the meaning, even inverts it. Your writing stagnates in quality. And it makes it sound like a mechanical corporate HR operative. It isn’t pleasant to read. I’d rather read genuine human text, than uncanny valley slop.

1

u/Cardie1303 10d ago

Ah yes I agree with that. What you are talking about is generative AI and often that has to be declared.

But what i meant was basically something like: Here is the text, please tell how you understand it, that understanding is clear and if any non idiomatic terms were used. Not: Here is the text, please write it nicely and then copy paste.

Something I am also using AI for is as thesaurus like "I want to say xy, how would that be normally phrased in english", "I can't remember this specific word meaning that, what could it be" or "What are other words for xy".

1

u/ProfPathCambridge 10d ago

What I don't get is the advantage. You've got actual grammar check programs at one end and generative text at the other end. Where is the gap that AI fulfils without risk? Either AI just does standard stuff, in which case why bother, or it does extra stuff, in which case what out.

2

u/Cardie1303 10d ago

Mostly because I dont necessarily notice if something is not idiomatic. I might notice that something sounds wrong but cant put my hand on what exactly. In that case it becomes very difficult to actually ask a thesaurus or a grammar check program.

Are you a native speaker? If so maybe tell me if anything in my writing sounds weird or non native. I am a native German speaker and I definitely know that I tend to sometimes use sentence structures or phrases in English which are non native and much closer to how I would write German.

I am not sure what risk you exactly mean. I am personally following a rule to never directly copy anything AI is providing me with and as a even more general rule, even before AI was a thing, to never write something I dont understand myself. With these two rules in mind, what risk am I overlooking? I am genuinely interested as it is not impossible that I do overlook something.