- 39% of people change the way they type so it doesn’t sound like AI
- About a third say they would stop supporting colleagues or creators because of undisclosed use of AI
- People still find it acceptable to use artificial intelligence in brainstorming, research and editing
A major study across the US, UK, EU and Latin America has revealed the impact AI is having on consumers both in terms of how they produce content and how they judge authenticity – something that sounds like AI has now become a social stigma, a new report from Use.AI reveals.
Although AI promises to boost productivity by automating some inefficient administrative workloads, nearly three-fifths (58%) of the more than 12,600 people surveyed said they have seen someone criticized online or in the workplace for using AI.
It’s gotten to the point where nearly half (46%) now worry that their own writing could be mistaken for AI-generated content, with 39% changing how they write specifically so they don’t sound like AI.
How to spot AI-generated content
Perfection to the point of not sounding human is generally how people might characterize AI-generated content – this includes excellent grammar, predictable transitions, and text that is emotionally neutral.
But workers are realizing it because many are now editing AI’s output to make it sound more human by cutting sentences shorter, adding small imperfections and removing the long lines that AI tools still seem obsessed with using.
“Creative workers face the sharpest version of the problem,” warns Use.AI, noting that their error-free work can actually be seen as a negative, due to its connotations of being AI-generated, even when it isn’t.
And it doesn’t stop at judgment – around a third say they would think less of a colleague, creator or classmate if AI had been used without full disclosure (35%), and that they would be less likely to support a creator as a result (34%).
“AI can be used to flood platforms with cheap content,” the report argues, highlighting the importance of authenticity, education and disclosure in good journalism.
The report also points to social media platforms such as LinkedIn. The platform’s existing style of sharp opening lines, short paragraphs, neat career lessons, humble authority and controlled vulnerability is often mistaken for AI-generated posts.
Where can AI be used?
While generating complete work is mostly frowned upon, consumers still support AI in the earlier stages of work. For example, three in five (62%) say that using artificial intelligence for editing, brainstorming and research should simply be seen as part of modern digital skills.
But this recently revealed widespread distrust and dissatisfaction with artificial intelligence comes at a price:
“Use the tool, but leave no fingerprints. Be efficient, but not suspiciously efficient. Write clearly, but not too cleanly. Know things, but not in a way that sounds collected.”
Use.AI isn’t worried about AI making weak work look competent, so much as it’s worried that really skilled individuals will start reducing the quality of their work to appear ‘lesser AI’.
But more importantly, this study largely agrees with a growing number of others despite reaching a similar conclusion from a different starting point. AI delivers on its promise of increasing efficiency by giving creators access to information or providing them with polished content in as little as seconds, but then much of that time is negated as the humans involved go behind it to refine the output—in this case, to make it more human.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews and opinions in your feeds.
