Comment by bluebarbet
1 month ago
It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove.
Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned.
The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.
I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I just don't understand the evidence you're putting forward to support your claim.
Have you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor ever used AI to revise articles? What was your experience?
Telling a story about editing an article once and thinking that AI could do it isn't as compelling.
Establishing ethos isn't the same thing as an appeal to authority.