Raw LLM Responses

Wait--I 100% agree with the general message here, but it took me a second to understand the criticism about the ableist phrasing of the sentence about certain groups being unable to "see" issues in their own work (14:05). I did rewatch your explanation of criticism to try to make sure I was responding to your point, which I think is that it seemed condescending to presume that these groups couldn't "see" the issues in their own writing. So my explanation is based off that understanding, and if I got that wrong, then ignore me--my bad. (Maybe the criticism also stems from it being under the subheading about "ableism," and if that's the case, I wasn't clear on that point, but I'm totally willing to be taken to task in that case--again, my bad!) But I thought that I might at least defend that sentiment (hold on, wait! I have a reason that's not just contrarian and I still think they're bad for all of the other reasons--come back!), because I think this sentiment applies way beyond the community they're associating it with, though obviously they might benefit from it more. (And to clear, the "it" here is NOT an AI program. Further, to be the ABSOLUTE clearest, I adhere to the positions on AI best enumerated by the author of the article "I Will F*cking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again." Clarity established, we can move on.) So from the perspective of someone who had to teach freshman composition as a grad student for many years (RIP), we often use this kind of phrasing (about students not being able to see issues in their own writing) to help explain the editing process and to try to mitigate any shame they might feel about typos or other grammar issues that they understand but accidentally miss when trying to proofread their own work. We try to stress that in the editing process EVERYONE (regardless of how well their brain does or doesn't work) has trouble catching the issues in their own work. Just like those typos and grammar issues that you caught in the ableism section, our eyes have a tendency to skip over such mistakes when re-reading our own work in the editing process, which is why we often recommend having a partner proofread your paper (because their brains don't already know what point the sentence is trying to make) or reading your work out loud to yourself (because the leaps your brain will automatically make to fill in a missing word or reverse words in a phrase might stick out if you add in an auditory component--and it also just makes you slow down, if you're a fast reader). Basically, your brain is doing a great job of translating the words on the page into the ideas you were trying to get across, but sometimes those words aren't always actually on the page and you need another set of eyes (again, so to speak) to help you catch what your brain can't see is missing. And I'm equally guilty of this, tbf--I will rewrite a sentence so many times, the ghosts of all its prior incarnations exist as I'm rereading it, so sometimes I can't even see the lingering holdouts when I'm editing. So yeah, I'm sure there are groups within the disability community (dyslexia crew rise up) that feel this effect to a much higher degree, but I just wanted to explain that the idea behind this sentence isn't necessarily a bad one on its face. Unlike every other sentence in that godforsaken article-cum-PR disaster. Again, to be clear, their attempt to get out in front of the criticism through offensive defense (and I mean that adjective in all of its iterations) covered the range from careless to appalling, and the fact that they weaponized issues that actually do plague these groups in order to justify their corporate sponsors is unjustifiable. If they actually thought that using an AI program could actually solve all of the issues that they outlined, then maybe they'd just be stupid, but what's worse, in my book, is the fact that, if they know enough to cite those problems, then they know enough about the problems to recognize how systemic they are, which FURTHER means that they know these problems aren't SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SOLVED BY USING AN AI PROGRAM. For that alone, they deserve whatever they get from the backlash. I just wanted to briefly interject to offer an explanation for that lone sentence because I did see how offensive it seemed without a bit more context. And while they're clearly bootlicking sellouts, I don't think they meant to say that some brains couldn't even comprehend their own lack of comprehension, if that makes sense. Tl;dr: NANOWRIMO is the devil, but I think we should give them partial credit for this one sentence and ONLY this sentence. Or maybe not give them credit--maybe just not subtract additional credit. It's almost 2 AM. Be merciful. You get where I'm going with this. I'm done with this extra credit assignment, and I refuse to edit this. So if there are typos, please don't tell me lol--ignorance is bliss.