Is AI writing assistance ethical?

[wearywanderer64]

I came across co pilot recently which can improve your word and phrase choice. At first I thought it was unethical. Then I got to thinking about the times I hired an editor and a developmental editor. Naturally, they were humans. But I've heard of writers sending off a manuscript that got booted from pillar to post by editors and they had to reword lots of their stuff. I've used the free version of Grammarly for a basic edit. Co-pilot helps with word choice, though I tend to change their options. So, is it any more ethical using AI than a human AI?

What's your opinion?

 

[Madman Starryteller]

I think it depends on who you ask. I feel as though the majority of people still thinks it would be unethical to have deeper AI assistance, but I have no numbers or statistics to back that feeling up. Just something I've garnered by being in various writing groups on social media and here.

My own opinion is that if the AI writes for you, then it's unethical. If you write, and the AI suggests spelling fixes or even some grammar fixes (which may not always be correct fixes) then it's better. I would say grammar assistant AI's are more grey zone for me.

 

[Naomasa298]

I use AI a lot, for beta reading and critique. However, what I never do is allow AI to choose or change words for me. All the words have to be mine, not generated by a machine, and in the order that I want them to be in. If I wanna write "Makes no sentence this sense", I don't want that corrected.

But asking if it's ethical is a bit like asking if eating delicious, delicious meat is ethical.

 

[Trish]

I use AI a lot, for beta reading and critique. However, what I never do is allow AI to choose or change words for me. All the words have to be mine, not generated by a machine, and in the order that I want them to be in. If I wanna write "Makes no sentence this sense", I don't want that corrected.

Same. 100%. I don't even allow it to suggest fixes. It can tell me something is awkward, or why it's an issue, but not how to fix it.

 

[wearywanderer64]

I think it depends on who you ask. I feel as though the majority of people still thinks it would be unethical to have deeper AI assistance, but I have no numbers or statistics to back that feeling up. Just something I've garnered by being in various writing groups on social media and here.

My own opinion is that if the AI writes for you, then it's unethical. If you write, and the AI suggests spelling fixes or even some grammar fixes (which may not always be correct fixes) then it's better. I would say grammar assistant AI's are more grey zone for me.

Yeah, I think if it writes for you, then it can be unethical. But there's a grey area where it's difficult to draw the line.

 

[Naomasa298]

Same. 100%. I don't even allow it to suggest fixes.

I'll let it criticise my word choices. It might sometimes complain that the way I phrased something is ambiguous, or in the wrong register, or maybe a sentence needs more impact. So I will let it judge if something I wrote aligns with what I was trying to do, but I won't let it tell me *how* it thinks it should be fixed - and I don't always agree with it either. I don't always agree with human editors either, mind. The difference is that an AI doesn't mind if I tell them they suck.

 

[wearywanderer64]

Same. 100%. I don't even allow it to suggest fixes. It can tell me something is awkward, or why it's an issue, but not how to fix it.

I sometimes go with the suggestions except in dialogue unless it's a forgotten question mark or comma. Even a spelling mistake here reds the word. Is this a form of AI?

 

[wearywanderer64]

I use AI a lot, for beta reading and critique. However, what I never do is allow AI to choose or change words for me. All the words have to be mine, not generated by a machine, and in the order that I want them to be in. If I wanna write "Makes no sentence this sense", I don't want that corrected.

But asking if it's ethical is a bit like asking if eating delicious, delicious meat is ethical.

Is there such a thing as a human AI, like a developmental editor?

 

[Homer Potvin]

Is there such a thing as a human AI, like a developmental editor?

I mean, considering the A stands for "artificial," that would seem to be an oxymoron.

 

[Madman Starryteller]

Is there such a thing as a human AI, like a developmental editor?

Not sure what you mean with the term human AI. The human mind was created by nature/god, depending on who you ask. While the computer intelligence was created by us, hence the term "artificial intelligence".

 

[wearywanderer64]

Not sure what you mean with the term human AI. The human mind was created by nature/god, depending on who you ask. While the computer intelligence was created by us, hence the term "artificial intelligence".

I mean using a human instead of AI.

 

[Madman Starryteller]

I mean using a human instead of AI.

I would say it's more ethical to have a human editor than an AI editor.

To me it becomes more raw and real for some reason when you deal with humans. And the human editor will be better at knowing if your text connects to humans in a good way.

But then there is the question of class and cost. Poor people won't be able to access human editors, in most cases. And I won't begrudge them editing work for their projects.

So for me, if you can afford it, get a human editor. If you can't, then you're fine using an AI editor as long as it doesn't write for you.

 

[Naomasa298]

I mean using a human instead of AI.

Yes, human developmental editors exist, and are much, much more expensive than AI ones. Yes, a human one is preferable, but you gotta do the best with whatever you can afford.

However, don't underestimate the ability of an AI to judge the emotional tone of any writing. Over the millions and millions of data points it has been trained in, it learns what people tend to regard as having certain tones. It's not always right, but neither are humans.

Is a human better? Depends on the human...

 

[wearywanderer64]

It's true about price. For a couple of hundred, I've got an AI editor for a year. It also depends on how much you write in a year.

 

[JLT]

I've never used anything more complex than a spell-checker and probably never will. But I've read a bit of AI-generated verbiage, and am always left with the "frozen pizza" sensation. It's something to eat, it's somewhat flavorful, but it has an uncanny sameness about it. It's nothing like a top-class pizza from a person who knows how to make one. It always appears to be written to please somebody else, not me.

Whether it's ethical to use it is a question I'll leave to others, with the caveat that it will affect your prose in ways you might not expect, and make you rely on it more. Is that a bad thing? You can always challenge it by writing something, letting the AI have a go at it, and then trying to top it by making it punchier. Again, using the frozen pizza analogy, you can add some ingredients to make it more suitable to your palate. But I wouldn't try to pass it off as the real thing.

 

[Trish]

I've never used anything more complex than a spell-checker and probably never will. But I've read a bit of AI-generated verbiage, and am always left with the "frozen pizza" sensation. It's something to eat, it's somewhat flavorful, but it has an uncanny sameness about it. It's nothing like a top-class pizza from a person who knows how to make one. It always appears to be written to please somebody else, not me.

Whether it's ethical to use it is a question I'll leave to others, with the caveat that it will affect your prose in ways you might not expect, and make you rely on it more. Is that a bad thing? You can always challenge it by writing something, letting the AI have a go at it, and then trying to top it by making it punchier. Again, using the frozen pizza analogy, you can add some ingredients to make it more suitable to your palate. But I wouldn't try to pass it off as the real thing.

You get that he didn't mean having AI write for him, right? There's definitely a difference between accepting a simple word change from co-pilot and putting in a prompt and having AI generate a story for you, which you then may edit slightly so it's more "punchy".

One is a restaurant pizza (word choice acceptance) and the other is a frozen pizza (primarily AI that is edited) and then there's the pizza with tomatoes imported from Italy and infused with the tuscan sun that every writer wants to be, but probably isn't. And while I don't personally allow it to even suggest word changes for me, I'm certainly not going to equate an occasional word choice with frozen pizza.

 

[Stuart Dren]

So, is it any more ethical using AI than a human AI?

What's your opinion?

Ah, good phrasing: is it any more ethical. Not sure what "human AI" means but I think it's a typo.

Environmental impact, content rights, corporate political alignment, and most importantly to me, the deleterious effect on the PC hardware market are all factors that each person will need to evaluate for himself. I still don't like using it regardless of those consequences, but it starts to get nebulous there.

I think for me, and this is about uh... "just the submarine's nose" use AKA "assistance," it gets to the point where it seems like surrendering judgement to an algorithm in a subtle way, in a don't-use-it-and-lose-it way. Surrendering to an algorithm of all things, a fast-food mind. Algorithms aren't interesting, compelling, sexy, so they're not welcome in my process. But that's a personal hold out on how it would affect me, not how it might affect other people.

As mentioned, a lot of people cannot afford a developmental or line editor or have access to beta readers (I thought the custom was to trade betas?) Frankly, though, any developmental editor we can afford will probably be tempted to use AI. After all, they can take on more clients that way, and the feedback seems detailed enough, right?

At the same time, do all writers really need or benefit from those services? To me, knowing what the reader, a human one, thought at various points in the story is what's valuable. Humans do not read like an LLM. I am writing for humans. How to fix the problems they encounter? Dude, I'm a writer, I can figure that part out.


I think the information is all there for you, or anyone, to ask the question of ethics in particular for themself if one is already not acutely bothered by using it. Same if you asked "Is it ethical to buy things on Amazon" or "Is it ethical to buy chocolate/coffee/products with cane sugar/iPhones." We live in the information age. All of the information is there for you to decide for yourself based on your values.

 

[Naomasa298]

A spell-checker is an "algorithm".

 

[Naomasa298]

Let's say I'm localising a story from British to American English. Tell me what's wrong with getting an AI to assist me and pointing out the things I need to change, and what to change them to?

It's not just spelling. For example, in the UK, we say "in hospital". Apparently, Americans prefer "in the hospital". I didn't know that, and I have no desire to learn fluent Yankee just to do it.

My point being that rejecting *all* use of AI seems like a misguided, knee-jerk reaction, to me.

I will stop now, before someone starts getting annoyed.

 

[Madman Starryteller]

My point being that rejecting *all* use of AI seems like a misguided, knee-jerk reaction, to me.

Doesn't have to be misguided or reactionary. One can simply choose to take a stand against a development that one views as troubling. I wouldn't call that knee-jerk reaction.

I don't know what the end result of AI development will be. All I know is that I love humanity despite our many faults, and would like for humans to prosper and see new worlds. If AI will help with that, then I am all for it. If AI will "take over or displace us" or otherwise be negative to our own development, then I am against AI. Simple. But now I think I'm straying off-topic. Sorry.