一位作者在Hacker News上发表观点，主张几乎不应使用AI撰写博客文章、研究报告、备忘录、邮件或小说等具有实质内容的文字1。这一立场基于三个核心理由：首先，写作过程本身是思维过程的重要组成部分1；其次，AI生成的文本存在细微但难以察觉的模糊和错误；最后，在未明确标注的情况下发表AI生成内容违反了读者与作者之间的隐含契约1。
作者引用Paul Graham的观点指出："写作会让你意识到自己对某事的理解不如想象中深入。一篇文章中一半的想法是写作过程中才想到的。"1评论者Clara Collier补充说："当我写实质性内容时，整个写作过程中我都在思考和改变想法。...如果我把大纲输入LLM，它不会停下来考虑也许大纲本身就有问题。"1
为说明问题的具体表现，作者分析了Claude生成的一段关于AI芯片走私的文本，指出其中存在多处缺陷：表述"出口管制的力度取决于执行力度"含混不清，"紧凑"一词的描述不准确，且"估计数字从数万到可能超过十万"的表述具有误导性1。作者认为不标注AI生成的内容"是粗鲁的"1。
作者允许在特定场景中使用AI，包括转录音频、分析数据、信息检索、头脑风暴、草稿反馈、行编辑和改写，但强调改写内容需逐一进行人工核准1。
An opinion piece argues that artificial intelligence should rarely be employed to generate substantive written content such as blog posts, research reports, memos, emails, or fiction 1. The author contends that the writing process itself constitutes a critical component of thinking, asserting that composing text forces writers to discover gaps in their understanding and develop ideas during the act of writing itself 1. According to the piece, Paul Graham has observed that "writing makes you realize you don't understand things as well as you thought you did. Half the ideas in an essay are things you didn't think of until you sat down to write it" 1.
The author identifies several problems inherent in AI-generated text, illustrating these concerns through a passage about AI chip smuggling produced by Claude 1. The analysis reveals subtle but consequential flaws: imprecise language such as "the strength of export controls depends on enforcement strength," inaccurate descriptors like "compact," and misleading quantifications including "estimates ranging from tens of thousands to possibly over a hundred thousand" 1. Beyond accuracy concerns, the author argues that failing to disclose AI-generated content to readers constitutes disrespect, violating an implicit contract between writer and audience 1.
However, the author identifies specific scenarios where AI assistance is appropriate: transcribing audio, analyzing data, retrieving information, brainstorming, providing feedback on drafts, line editing, and rewriting—provided that humans individually verify each revision 1. Clara Collier is quoted emphasizing that substantive writing inherently involves continuous thinking and revision: "When I write something substantive, I'm thinking and changing my mind throughout the entire writing process. … If I feed an outline into an LLM, it won't stop to consider that maybe the outline itself is problematic" 1.
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。