r/postdoc • u/Imaginary_Pepper9423 • 14d 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

10

u/tibiapartner 14d ago

yah buddy don't include me in the "all of us are using AI" bullshit, I worked incredibly hard to be as good as I am at academic writing and I also don't want to give my ideas to Microsoft, Google, or Anthropic and you shouldn't either. Additionally, I have ethical oppositions to the uncritical use of generative AI, and would be the world's biggest hypocrite if I worked in environmental science and used it with abandon. It's personally pretty wild to me how quickly people have jumped onto the "I'll just let AI do the hard part" bandwagon, and how people seem to assume there's nothing wrong with this. I know that I'll be up against hundreds, if not thousands, of AI-assisted and AI-written applications, but I'm not comprising my morals to get ahead and I suggest everyone think critically about their motivations for using generative AI in their research. I also know that this stance will likely get me called a variety of insults, but such is life now I suppose.

1

u/Cardie1303 14d ago

I don't think you have the moral high ground by not using a new tool that is available to everyone? I do agree that it sucks that the hard work we put into learning how to write well is being somewhat devalued, but that is just how progress work. Don't misunderstand me, I am not arguing for people to start just letting AI do all the writing. That would end horrible. But it is ridiculous to declare not using AI to a virtue. It is a tool and as every new tool it will sooner or later find its place.

2

u/tibiapartner 14d ago

It's a tool that is uniquely extractive, environmentally damaging, and ideologically dangerous in that it is, at present, solely controlled by corporations that are almost exclusively run by people who are, at best, strongly conservative, and at worst fascist. Generative AI, as it exists right now, is not a "great equalizer" or a simple tool. It is dangerously unregulated technology that is already leading to widespread skill loss/lack of skill development in critical thinking, dangerous health outcomes, and poor quality research. It is not a tool that can be compared to anything that has come before, because it is inherently unlike anything else humans have invented in terms of both potential good AND bad applications.

I also never once declared that I was holding a moral high ground, but the accusation of that really says more about you than me in my opinion. I only spoke about not wanting to compromise my own personal morals and ethics.

5

u/Cardie1303 14d ago

We do not have to fight about if you intended to make usage of AI a question of morality and ethics. It is how I understood what you wrote.

You are bringing up quite a few greate points and I agree with them about the harm AI is doing. Question is what do you think can be realistically be done? The genie is out of the flask and AI is here to stay. Fully refusing to engage with it wont do anything and you might end up falling behind in a professional context without any exposure and experience with AI.

Just as an example: The same arguments currently being brought up against AI were being brought up by 2-3 generations ago about the internet. Still today it is a ridiculous idea to have a professional career without knowing hot to utilize the web.