Quote:
Originally Posted by ekbell
I think that this publisher is taking it seriously because it takes time to check over a submission, see that it's A.I. generated junk (or possibly less junky A.I. plagiarism) and toss it out. And even with better auto-detect we would still need humans for the 'Does this plot make any sense' check.
Open submission simply can not work if the junk to readable ratio is too high. Particularly when the junk uses proper grammar and spelling and makes some sort of sense on the paragraph level.
|
First, what's the point of a publisher if they're not going to check over submissions? These days one of their self-proclaimed reasons for being is to act as a gate-keeper and filter.
Second, I don't think that a 'Does this plot make any sense' check helps you separate AI from human - seems to me I've come across plenty of (assumed) human texts with nonsense plots.
Third, take a look at the the
earlier critique of the ChatGPT example and tell me you've never seen the same criticisms of human text. Indeed that post also critiqued another post too, on not dissimilar lines, and yet I give Quoth the benefit of the doubt as regards being human.
Panic may be inappropriate, but there is certainly enough going on in this space to make it interesting to watch.