I tend to agree. I just read a bunch of cover letters and resumes that could have used a little AI. Of course, had they known what to ask it, they wouldn't have needed it, so maybe not.
I wouldn’t say Grammarly makes high quality content at all. I’ve been using the program for a few years now to help tighten stuff up—length, forgetting to put in a comma—but their AI stuff is still pretty bad. I’ve toyed around with that long enough to stay away from it. It doesn’t read context and their AI “checker” is still a massive joke.
It tells you almost everything you’ve written when it comes to academia sounds like AI. Even when you have it set for academia (I always, always fuck up APA and Grammarly laughs at me). You also can’t click sections to remove from being read as AI. My headings and subheadings are always grouped in.
I use Grammarly, too, to write most of my content. English is not my first or even second language, and it is painful to write English with correct grammar. The tool helped me enormously. Typically, it would take me ages to fine-tune. Using the tool also helped me to improve my grammar.
I tried the AI tools by writing some ramblings in it and hoping it would be a coherent piece. It does, but it lost my voice or tone. This is what people forget and don't understand. When you write a lot, you find your tone and voice. As a reader, when you read them regularly, you can recognize a piece by it. When you start writing a lot, you try to find this. I have written pieces differently because I couldn't find my tone yet. AI writes mainly in the same tone.
Yeah. Too much of the anti AI backlash smells of early internet days reactionism. Give a smooth brain google access and get garbage. Matters how you use it, tbf.
4
u/lykosen11 2d ago
Kinda agree with this one
With peace and love I'm calling notalunatic
Fuck the nonsense fully automated content. But I wouldn't hate on someone for using grammarly to make high quality content quicker.