I work as a science journalist. For an article of mine to have any value, readers need to know they can trust it. They need to know it was written by me and not by some other person or for some other purpose.
The actual act of the writing, itself, is no special privilege. The ability to write is a basic public good that we provide every child with. For a couple of years now, we've even have had machines that can do it.
Different people will have different opinions about AI-generated writing. Some will see it as helpful, whereas others will see it as a violation of ethics or the human intellect.
However, I believe what we need, at this time, is not to come to consensus around the use of AI. Rather, I believe we must come to consensus on being clear about who has written what. In other words, I believe we must all agree to become more transparent.
I personally believe that the use of AI in writing, without transparently acknowledging it, is uncomfortably close to plagiarism, and I have little interest in reading it. And, I have now come across many cases of professional writing—including journalistic writing—that show likely 'tells' of using AI—and without acknowledgement. I would not publicly accuse those writers of using AI, but I would politely ask them; and I have done that.
Because, as a reader, I refuse to accept it. No writer can replace their own writing with that of a machine, say it is theirs, and then claim that it has the same merit.
More generally, I believe that what we need is a social movement for transparency around the use of AI in writing, art, and other modalities. Wherever anyone writes in a serious capacity, they must note whether or not they've used AI, and how much. In my opinion, all professional sources of writing must do this, or they will become increasingly valueless and irrelevant.
Of course, such transparency statements, even if present, are no guarantee that a writer is telling the truth—but that is not the point. The whole point is to be able to trust authorship; to not have to question who wrote something, even if we must inevitably question what they wrote.
To sum up, I pledge to be transparent about the use of AI in all my writing. Some others have already made similar statements, as have some outlets. I would like to keep seeing them. I'm going to suggest others make their own statements, or share posts like this one (although it is not my intention to take credit).
But obviously, this push for transparency goes well beyond just making posts or statements. It means engaging in discussions and democratic and community processes. It means demanding better technology products from companies—for example, social media feeds that incorporate a simple means for people to designate their commitment to transparency—or lack thereof.
My hope is that AI doesn't have to degrade the ethical norms of society; just like the written word didn't.
Foom Magazine is a new website for science news and analysis motivated by concerns about both present and future AI impacts. Initial funding for the website has been provided by a grant from the EA Funds Long Term Future Fund.