MAP Forum

Fragment and I have been posting a number of AI articles on this forum.

We're aware that the use of AI carries negative connotations.

However, these articles are not just the hallucinations of an untrained bot. We have been independently training AI on our arguments, and we feed it ideas each time we have something to write about.

The use of AI allows us to put out arguments more efficiently, and in ways that may be more receptive to laypeople.

Please don't discount the AI articles. They say exactly what we want them to say, often with better wording.

I certainly don't have anything against AI. These negative connotations are just people fearing new technology.
AI is, in the end, a tool. It all depends on how you use it.

My opinion is that being against writing with the aid of AI is like being against math with the use of a calculator.

Unaided skills development may be of use in the classroom, but in the real world? Efficiency is more important.

I get AI fatigue. There's a way AI-generated writing usually reads that feels monotonous to me. At least when a person bores me, I'm learning something about that person, but when AI bores me I'm not really gaining anything from it. I'd rather just see the bibliography and go back to the original sources than listen to an AI summary. I don't mind using AI to find sources or to check your logic, though.

Hallucinations aren't that big of a problem as long as you're checking the sources you get.

Thank you BR to make this point. I actually had in the drafts a thread on this topic.
I understand transparency/honesty about the AI disclaimer, but I'm just wondering... If the article sounds like you, reflects your thoughts and has been checked and approved by yourself, in the present climate of controversy about AI usage, is putting that disclaimer a positive thing?

Fragment wrote: Sat May 24, 2025 5:48 pm My opinion is that being against writing with the aid of AI is like being against math with the use of a calculator.

Hey, this was my line! As I mentioned in our internal chat: Besides the possible negatives of putting an "done with AI" disclaimer, I feel that in the future this might sound a bit like today would sound the following disclaimer in a scientific paper: "This equation has been solved with the use of a calculator".

The downside I see with using AI is that there will be too much content produced and not enough people to consume it. My personal take is that I would like to see the AI more employed as a way to “compress” text to the most information dense yet compelling and intelligible content. And I mean very short paragraphs, not summaries of chapters. Text walls written with AI are good for specialized books maybe, not for forums.

PorcelainLark wrote: Sat May 24, 2025 11:36 pm I get AI fatigue. There's a way AI-generated writing usually reads that feels monotonous to me. At least when a person bores me, I'm learning something about that person, but when AI bores me I'm not really gaining anything from it. I'd rather just see the bibliography and go back to the original sources than listen to an AI summary. I don't mind using AI to find sources or to check your logic, though.

Hallucinations aren't that big of a problem as long as you're checking the sources you get.

I find AI better as a writing tool than a research tool, usually.

It can get a bit repetitive, but sometimes that's due to poor prompt engineering. Having it learn your own writing style- or develop other writing styles based on authors you like- can avoid some of the problems you mention. Unfortunately a lot of people don't often do that. I definitely put out a lot of material that's "one style", myself. Partially because I just want to get my ideas out in a fully formed way, rather than obsessing about how to phrase things. That's also just because I have a dead line (under 2 months now) and my own writing speed can't keep up with my idea generation.

Hey, this was my line!

Yes, I believe it was. I guess I can't help but propagate good ideas?