The whole premise of checking for human writing is daft
The author argues that the obsession with distinguishing between human-written and AI-generated text is misguided and ignores the value of the creative process. They suggest that the focus should shift from the method of production to the quality and utility of the final output.
Why it matters
This perspective challenges current societal norms regarding authorship and the integration of AI tools in professional and creative work.
I understand why people want you to write; because it’s good for you, because it focuses a wandering thought, because the first sentence is usually rubbish and the seventh is often better, because you learn cadence and structure and argument through repetition, because there are things you don’t know you believe until you try to explain them, and because spending an afternoon wrestling a stubborn idea into words can leave you with a stronger brain; but none of this explains why we’ve decided that the physical production of every word, one keystroke at a time, must now serve as a test of whether a thought is human.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in