Compare the reverse: “This sounds like AI. Is this writing bad?” That is paranoia.
The AI smell is a warning sign of problems with the writing itself. Sometimes, so loud a warning that it is not worth the effort to read any deeper. One does not seek an emperor in a village teahouse.
Also, if the text was written by AI, it means that none of your feedback will have an impact on author’s next post. Your feedback is talking to a machine that isn’t even listening.
To me that seems like the difference between text written by AI, and text written with AI. Selection as a steering mechanism for AI currently only works well with a human curator. This applies during writing (choosing between options, or choosing when to intervene with manual edits), but just as well applies after writing (seeing feedback on a piece, and learning how to improve your own curatorial instinct).
After that, the hope is that with future tools, curating a better past context window will itself lead to better future AI writing outputs. But I don’t think the tools are there yet.
The AI smell is a warning sign of problems with the writing itself. Sometimes, so loud a warning that it is not worth the effort to read any deeper. One does not seek an emperor in a village teahouse.
Also, if the text was written by AI, it means that none of your feedback will have an impact on author’s next post. Your feedback is talking to a machine that isn’t even listening.
To me that seems like the difference between text written by AI, and text written with AI. Selection as a steering mechanism for AI currently only works well with a human curator. This applies during writing (choosing between options, or choosing when to intervene with manual edits), but just as well applies after writing (seeing feedback on a piece, and learning how to improve your own curatorial instinct).
After that, the hope is that with future tools, curating a better past context window will itself lead to better future AI writing outputs. But I don’t think the tools are there yet.