The New LessWrong Editor! (Also, an update to our LLM policy.) is the clearest statement of current policy. But it is a little borderline; they say AI can’t write the first draft, and it didn’t, and that it can only do “minor editing” which is ambiguous, but what you describe sounds more than minor. One question is if Pangram thinks its AI; in some of the comments, it sounds like that’s their actual operational criteria for what’s too much AI editing.
One thing to do is tell it to definitely preserve your style while only suggesting alterations to make it look more like a fluent speaker. If you do this, it will probably pass Pangram to their criteria 9which they say is low estimated AI content, but don’t give a number). I’m still a bit unclear on whether you’d need to report it, or whether that’s enough disambiguation to say the edits are effectively minor enough.
This should also help a lot with what people care about, which is writing with standard AI tics.
Right. I phrased that poorly. Visible AI writing is an indicator of AI thinking, which is what readers most want to avoid. If you wrote a complete first draft, you’ve mostly avoided this already. Major edits from the AI will pull it toward being AI thinking. They also make readers assume it’s AI thinking even if it’s mostly human thinking.
Probably yes.
The New LessWrong Editor! (Also, an update to our LLM policy.) is the clearest statement of current policy. But it is a little borderline; they say AI can’t write the first draft, and it didn’t, and that it can only do “minor editing” which is ambiguous, but what you describe sounds more than minor. One question is if Pangram thinks its AI; in some of the comments, it sounds like that’s their actual operational criteria for what’s too much AI editing.
One thing to do is tell it to definitely preserve your style while only suggesting alterations to make it look more like a fluent speaker. If you do this, it will probably pass Pangram to their criteria 9which they say is low estimated AI content, but don’t give a number). I’m still a bit unclear on whether you’d need to report it, or whether that’s enough disambiguation to say the edits are effectively minor enough.
This should also help a lot with what people care about, which is writing with standard AI tics.
This is not the main concern IMO.
Right. I phrased that poorly. Visible AI writing is an indicator of AI thinking, which is what readers most want to avoid. If you wrote a complete first draft, you’ve mostly avoided this already. Major edits from the AI will pull it toward being AI thinking. They also make readers assume it’s AI thinking even if it’s mostly human thinking.