When I wrote about trust, I see that I made a mistake: most people seem to have understood it as being in regard to fake things. I just meant trust as in, it’s not AI-generated.
Your comment about the fluff is exactly what I mean. I read some fluff that is AI-generated and some kind of disgust happens in my stomach, and I wish there was nothing written there at all. I just feel like it’s be best to not read anything than read something that’s AI-generated… it’s almost like the author is trying to trick me with a fake version of reality. I wonder if there’s such a thing as the uncanny valley for text?
Well, I apologize for using the word “fluff.” That was a mistake.
As a lifelong engineer, I “grew up” with a somewhat antagonistic relationship with Marketing, so became used to disparaging their work, even if I had to change hats, myself, and act in a Marketing capacity.
I should have probably used the word “copy,” instead.
But you have a good point.
I think that one “legitimate” use for AI-generated text, will be for non-native speakers of a language, using it to correct their vocabulary.
For things like patents and papers, this is probably a good thing. AI can generate clear, concise vernacular. I often specify the reading level, in my prompts (usually tenth grade), so that the prose is accessible.
For things like presentation proposals; not so much. You may get a proposal that reads like it was written by an English professor, and the actual presentation is barely comprehensible.
Your comment about the fluff is exactly what I mean. I read some fluff that is AI-generated and some kind of disgust happens in my stomach, and I wish there was nothing written there at all. I just feel like it’s be best to not read anything than read something that’s AI-generated… it’s almost like the author is trying to trick me with a fake version of reality. I wonder if there’s such a thing as the uncanny valley for text?