honesty is only a virtue unalloyed. the goal is to eradicate AI slop in this space. why would we allow it under the pretense of 'at least they admit it?' that's not the goal. the goal is to remove it entirely. when it's detected, it should be gone.
it is also not at all an accessibility aid. as the exact demographic of person (rather severe presentation of ADHD) who would be supposedly most aided by this, as well as being a data science major, I wholeheartedly reject the idea that it in any way meets an acceptable standard for constituting that. the average person genuinely doesn't know the sheer amount of subtle fuckups and misinformation these diceroll plagiarism boxes output even when provided the exact text they are supposed to paraphrase. rather, its main effect–due to them 'seeming right'–is a disinformative capacity, encouraging people to skip the article and defer to the generated 'summary.' I simply do not think this is a sound argument.
just write the summary yourself. I assume you've read the article. It can be a paragraph. let's say you don't want to. we can access the text. we can access these chatbots. we can toss the article at the chatbots on our own time. I don't want AI slop on this forum at all and oppose the normalization of it, especially under flimsy pretenses such as this.
you have iphone yet you exist situation–you are making a conscious choice to use it and you can stop at any time. it is a service. it provides no real value that cannot be filled with human thought. if we find that real value, then it merely has that and none more. it is a service that we have lived without until 2022, and–likely–a plurality, if not majority, continue to do as such. it is built on the non-consensual theft of the labor of all who have been preserved on the internet and is maintained by exploitation of the poor in the periphery. it is being used as justification to shepherd in draconian natsec clamps and chauvinist trade policies, and its use has festered a notable acceleration of environmental damage due to its inefficiencies and compute power necessary. the development of it is bankrolled by individuals that seek to use it as a springboard to have a final cutting of ties with the rest of humanity from their profit mode. it is notoriously unreliable and has an entire industry-established term for its tendency for misinformation. consistent usage of it results in the degradation/atrophying of internal processing, prior-held skills, and critical thinking (and once again, to note w/rt this, it has notoriously unreliable output) due to said functions being outsourced to it over time. it also fucking sucks at writing and its output is annoying to read when viewed by anyone who has a functional internal metric for it, no matter if they do detect its 'author.' its use is not mandated neither by broader consensus among the general population nor literally mandated in any capacity. just because you personally deem these acceptable doesn't mean we have to tolerate you nor any other subjecting us to it.
