This is a nuanced question that depends heavily on the specific criticism and context involved.
Some criticisms of AI writing can indeed reflect problematic biases:
Potentially elitist aspects:
Dismissing AI use often assumes everyone has equal access to high-quality education, time for extensive writing practice, or native fluency in the language they're writing in
It can privilege traditional forms of cultural capital and educational background
May ignore legitimate accessibility needs - AI can be genuinely helpful for people with dyslexia, ADHD, or other learning differences
Potentially discriminatory elements:
Could disproportionately affect non-native speakers who use AI to help with grammar, style, or cultural communication norms
May unfairly impact people from different socioeconomic backgrounds who didn't have the same writing instruction opportunities
However, not all criticism is inherently biased:
Concerns about academic integrity in educational settings can be legitimate
Worries about skill development and learning are valid in many contexts
Professional standards in certain fields may reasonably require human-generated work
Transparency about AI use is often a fair expectation
--- ----
acutally, above answer is from AI, what do you think about it?
Yeah the first two sentences were a dead giveaway this response was from AI. I'm not mad about it, just pointing out in this case it was obvious. I'm assuming with the right prompting you can make AI generate much more human plausible responses?
> Perhaps such people did not learn English as their first language and hence are more likely to belong to a minority group — so it’s racist to be upset about them using AI.
So most of Europe is now minority? Cool I guess, finally I can feel special
In my experience poor grammar is not often a problem.
I've worked in tech with large teams with people of all sorts of backgrounds, in English, often broken English, and nobody cared.
AI, when people think they see it adds an air of dishonestly. Is that person there to scam someone? Did they even choose those words carefully? I do not know.
It makes conversations difficult now that you are second guessing everything.
Broken grammar in my experience both seems more sincere, and is more accurate.
This is a nuanced question that depends heavily on the specific criticism and context involved. Some criticisms of AI writing can indeed reflect problematic biases: Potentially elitist aspects:
Dismissing AI use often assumes everyone has equal access to high-quality education, time for extensive writing practice, or native fluency in the language they're writing in
It can privilege traditional forms of cultural capital and educational background
May ignore legitimate accessibility needs - AI can be genuinely helpful for people with dyslexia, ADHD, or other learning differences
Potentially discriminatory elements:
Could disproportionately affect non-native speakers who use AI to help with grammar, style, or cultural communication norms
May unfairly impact people from different socioeconomic backgrounds who didn't have the same writing instruction opportunities
However, not all criticism is inherently biased:
Concerns about academic integrity in educational settings can be legitimate Worries about skill development and learning are valid in many contexts Professional standards in certain fields may reasonably require human-generated work Transparency about AI use is often a fair expectation
--- ----
acutally, above answer is from AI, what do you think about it?
Yeah the first two sentences were a dead giveaway this response was from AI. I'm not mad about it, just pointing out in this case it was obvious. I'm assuming with the right prompting you can make AI generate much more human plausible responses?
> Perhaps such people did not learn English as their first language and hence are more likely to belong to a minority group — so it’s racist to be upset about them using AI.
So most of Europe is now minority? Cool I guess, finally I can feel special
Or just think about China, the 1.4b minority lol
Would you prefer 3rd party content about your product written in halting English or an AI generated article?
Both options will be vaguely inaccurate. For me, the answer has generally been: Yes, I'll share it. Thanks for the content and enthusiasm.
However, it would have been nice if they had written in their native language. I would have added that to the content feeds as well.
In my experience poor grammar is not often a problem.
I've worked in tech with large teams with people of all sorts of backgrounds, in English, often broken English, and nobody cared.
AI, when people think they see it adds an air of dishonestly. Is that person there to scam someone? Did they even choose those words carefully? I do not know.
It makes conversations difficult now that you are second guessing everything.
Broken grammar in my experience both seems more sincere, and is more accurate.
No.
I only care if the code that is written is correct and that the person who wrote it fully understands it.
Would you want to hire someone who is fully reliant on AI and does not understand the code that the AI generated?
if you are writing on SNS i do not give a shit about grammar or spelling
Nope, just courteous.