To our AI, we never use AI tools to directly generate articles. Instead, we use AI (Chatgpt Deep Research, for example) tools to search for sources and help us in our data synthesis process. I have been writing for several years now, and I have since developed a particular tenderness for EM-Dash, a powerful tool used to connect two complete ideas in a fluid and prolonged sentence. Unfortunately for me, this particular punctuation mark, formerly a symbol of literary learning and stylistic flair, has become more and more associated with large language models like Chatgpt. Despite the potential accusations to use AI to skimp on my writing or the risk of looking like Chatgpt every time I write, I will never stop using EM -Dash – and here is why.
Indeed, there have been vast examples of content of the human expression suffocated through external pressures – be it censorship policies of autocratic regimes or the application of social norms and taboos, many cultures have specific characteristics dictating what you can or cannot say. However, I maintain that none of these aforementioned restrictions, to the extent paththat an idea is expressed. Unable to talk about the majority of languages ​​in the world, I have to use a specific example of English and Chinese, the two languages ​​that I speak fluently. We could argue that the style of speech (such as variations in the use of punctuation, specific vocabulary and sentences) exists in the form of dialects. The two languages, in many cases, have been modified following regional acculturation, resulting in a plethora of dialects (vernacular African-American and South America as examples of American dialects; Guangdonghua and Beijinghua as examples of Chinese Mandarin dialect) which, with other things, contribute to the degree of various cultural diversities compliant parapters.
For my parallelism argument to be effective, the question of whether the stylistic preference of a single person could be compared to that shared between a large group of individuals must be answered. Practicing impartiality while answering this question, it is important to recognize that the speakers of the dialects have sometimes been persecuted for their deviation from the commonly accepted grammatical syntax, as was the case in the late 1900s, when Aave was considered “broken English” by many. This is probably the case due to the fact that the vernacular himself is associated with negative perceptions of the black stereotype, and not with a weakness inherent in the characteristics of the dialect itself; A white man using Aave during this period would have been shameful not because of the grammatical incorrection of his language, but because of his voluntary association with archetypical ideas of crime and mediocre education. Thus, we see that the cultural bias against dialects is in fact generalizable to all the ways of speech as long as they are associated with a negative social perception.
In turn, I argue that the verbal characteristics of a stylistic choice in language should not be considered without a context of support concerning the fact that it constitutes a consequence or a direct application of features deemed morally widespread, because it is morally unfair to associate the well-explained but poorly explained immoral belief of an individual with depravity, unless the choices themselves perpetuate an immoral belief. By this logic, we could possibly condemn the use by a racial language by an individual because The words used by the speaker ostensibly transmit his prejudices, while a similar language used without Prejudices, as is often the case when “recovered” insults are used internally by members of corresponding racial groups, is generally morally acceptable.
Back to the question of “Why is it bad to look like an AI model? “, These conclusions apply darkly. Perhaps a potential explanation lies in the trend inherent in our society to assess individual results thanks to excellence – students according to the most difficult mathematics lessons or obtaining the highest scoring for exams often receive the most congratulations – as well as the association of these values ​​with individualistic ideals of creativity and self -reproduction. Despite my too optimistic belief that AI models like Chatgpt should remain, at most, a useful tool for helping humanity to solve some of its fundamental problems, many consider Chatgpt as a simple escape from many burdens that are accompanied by being simply human, creativity being one of them. It follows that writing grammatically similar to the text produced by one of these models can be interpreted as a daring gap of the abovementioned ideals of an excellent human; renounce the complex discussion of the true role that AI plays in human life, the perceptionOf this role alone (as, in our case, the idea that AI is a lazy way to finish assigned work) is the main decisive of the way in which linguistic styles associated with AI are interpreted.
An obvious criticism of the popular position that it is not desirable to write as a model of AI stems from the fundamental concept of an AI itself. The System Map of the largest IA companies (Openai, Anthropic, Deepmind) orders their models to be useful, informative and professional. The use of generalization according to which the LLMs are exclusively formed on human data and therefore find, connect and use the language models practiced by humans themselves, it would not be very stretched to say that many of the common models observed in the so-called informative AI models are, at least as dictated by humans before the age of AI, signs of intellectualism that LLM are trying to emulate. It is then paradoxical to claim that writing like that produced by AI indicates a reluctance to demonstrate the values ​​of human excellence, because the precision and the rigor with which these LLMs were formed suggest that the text produced by these models was indeed aligned on the instructions of the model card, which contain, in contradiction with the original claim, human paragons.
This article is presented to you by our AI, an organization of Ethics of AI based on students and managed by students seeking to diversify perspectives in AI beyond what is generally discussed in modern media. If you appreciated this article, please consult our monthly publications at https://www.our-ai.org/ai-nexus/read!
Another less marked counterpoint lies in the intrinsically human nature of language. It is as banal and natural for us as eating or sleeping, but I am dismayed by the apparent indifference of certain people to allow something as lifeless as the AI ​​of approaching us. Although I leave this point of speculation as an exercise to the reader, I must emphasize in my opinion that whatever happens, we must prioritize the preservation of our humanity in the context of the rapid development of AI. Even if the detectors and peers of AI can see my writing and jump to the conclusion that the text was generated by AI, my humanity forces me to continue using EM-Dash.
