I am heading out, as I do most Sundays, to meet with the biking group. No, I don't bike; more than that, I don't want to be judged for joining a biking group coffee conversation without having biked there. I love solving the world’s problems before noon and then returning to my everyday life having had a meaningful, even joyful interaction, without biking.
Why am I sharing this? I have been thinking about the backlash against (and shaming of) AI-generated everything, but most prominently, writing. I want to be judged by the quality of my ideas, the clarity, and the flow of what I want to say. Just like I want to show up for the biking group not having biked, without judgment. When I read AI, it is the same; I do not want to care if it was generated (or smoothed) by AI; I want to care about the content and the ideas.
The truth is that it takes discipline. There is ample work that shows that AI users are better at spotting AI writing. I am not sure I am better than average, but there are cases when I am quite sure that I am reading AI. Notice I did not say AI slop, just AI. And that is the distinction for me: slop is slop whether AI-generated or not.` Coherent arguments are coherent regardless of authorship.
What I noticed, especially when I do peer reviews, is that I have an instinctive reaction to writing that strikes me as Claude-ish (or AI-ish). My bias translates to: “if you asked AI to write this, why did you ask me to read this? Why should I care?” This has also been documented as the AI tax: people devalue what they perceive (accurately or not) as a product of AI. As with other cognitive biases, I have to use metacognitive strategies to shape the bias and ask the more substantive question. What is the merit of the argument? What does it add to our scientific knowledge? Where can it be better. The biggest challenge may be that cognitive biases are notoriously hard to shake. Kahenmann said: “This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Few of us are immune to this blind spot. In the case of AI I am painfully aware that dismissing AI is a lazy heuristic but that does not make it much easier to overcome. I make a special effort to work through the text and get to the heart of the argument.
Notice I am not claiming that AI text is better. In fact, I believe it is often worse because it tends to use expected but dense language. The point is that I need to judge it on its own merit without considering the source.
This argument does not hold in education. In my classes, I am teaching students to think, and so evaluating the argument made by AI is irrelevant; the point was to teach humans to think. This makes AI a much more nuanced partner. In science, the only question is whether science has moved forward; in training teachers, the question was whether they developed the discernment and capacity.
The education part requires more thought (or so Claude has informed me) but I am off to meet the bike group.
