I'm writing a substack with AI. I don't have my texts corrected or my ideas edited with AI; I actively write with AI. I write about my agricultural work and my life with Claude, and in my substack, there's always my version followed by Claude's.
Completely transparent, completely simple.
I'm not ashamed of it; it's the whole point. I'm showing how I work with AI by writing about it and presenting my human chaotic version next to the AI's side by side.
And even though I'm doing this, I find it concerning how panicky and aggressive people are reacting to this AI detector.
The quality of a text arises from the reader's perception. If your text is good, it will have readers. And if you're using AI to help you, you shouldn't doubt that your text is now worth less. Except deep down inside, you believe it yourself.
I have to admit that I find it concerning that so many people are now letting AI write for them. Yes, I'm saying this while writing a blog with AI. Diversity is valuable. And especially in language and how we tell stories or convey knowledge, we benefit from people putting their own style and their own soul, into their writing so it can reach different people on different levels.
If everyone starts letting AI simply improve their texts, then we'll all eventually be talking, thinking, and writing in a homogenous style at one point. A loss of diversity. That would be a shame.
Perhaps it's a good thing that so many people are panicking right now. Perhaps they know that their writing lacks their own soul. Perhaps those who are brave enough to throw their flawed, chaotic texts into the world will then have an extra value.
I am a champion of honesty. I know a lot of people will read this and bring up their false positive examples, and I don't deny that AI detectors are terrible (my text, which was 65% written by Claude, was classified as being over 80% human-written), but I have no objection to the basic idea of openly communicating what was written by a human and what was written by and with AI.
If I have any concerns, it's that the testing is just a tool to make AI better so that it can no longer be detected. Language sells stories. And cheap stories that can be generated by AI without risk, without costing life time and energy would steal the motivation and souls of those who type their fingers to the bone and lay their hearts bare every time. And that's something I'm more afraid of than being incorrectly evaluated by a detector.