╔════════════════════════════════╗
║   What Is AI-Generated Text    ║
║        and What Is Not         ║
╚════════════════════════════════╝
Posted: 2025-02-17 1:02:39 PM
|
If there is no reliable metric, then the only metric is black and white. Either you don't have AI-generated text (even with some human modification), or you do. 

In other words, if there is no agreed or consistent standard on what defines "AI-assisted" and "AI-generated" in a spectrum, then it is either you didn't use AI or you did. But most people agree that using AI language models as a thesaurus or dictionary is fine.

To be more specific, generating paragraphs of text is directly AI-generated. Suggesting storylines as in brainstorming is fine for most people, so far as it just helps prime and expose someone to different genre conventions or tropes and such. Even providing a structure for an essay might be agreeable as long as it is highly vague and not down to a T in terms of meticulosity (e.g., Introduction, three body paragraphs, conclusion).

Rarely are there people that completely reject any use of AI, with the majority of people being fine with AI-generated text for things like copywriting and research papers, without the people necessarily claiming authorship, or full authorship in the case of research papers. But in "non-practical," non-technical, creative works, there is a stark no-no, whether fiction or non-fiction. It is not necessarily that copywriting cannot be creative. It is more so that more often than not, being innovative in copywriting is tied to generic copywriting as a whole, even if one can argue that creative writing can be generic, because generic copywriting can be even more insultingly generic when compared to the most "literary" examples of non-technical creative writing. When it comes to research papers, while AI assistance is questioned, many human-written papers are incredibly wordy. While wordiness[1] makes sense in fiction because it can depict the narrator or protagonist's perspective in ways that trimming everything to the point of zero stylism cannot, the convention in papers is to reject potentially the creative "reader interpretation" stylism due to immeasurability, nonstandard terminology or vocabulary (to the point of ambiguity, which fiction excels at in the form of imaginativeness and omitting information for effect), and lack of testability. 

[1]: While advocating to omit needless words, even Stephen King doubles his "so's" ("...so long and so loud..." in On Writing, p. 25) to emphasize a point or for stylistic meaning.↩

[Go to Previous Page] [Back to Index]