Use of AI for RoadTest/Project applications

Here is the element14 regulation:

(+) Regulation of Content Created and Submitted to the Site using LLM tools and ChatGPT - element14 Community

Better if you explained the use cases. For example, I'm going to use AI to correct my grammar, or I'm going to use AI to translate from my native language to English, or I'm going to use AI to help me make a list of tasks to do in my roadtest, or I'm going to ask AI for help to create a content template. My opinion is that in those cases there would be no problem. But you will be much more successful by reviewing past roadtests. Do your homework and you'll waste less time than arguing with chatgpt.

Other use cases I think should be discussed.

The decision to accept a Roadtest Application or Project that has been touched by Ai should depend on why AI was deployed.

Using AI to overcome a physical or mental barrier would seem acceptable. Language support could also merit acceptance. It would be stretch to say overcome social or economic barriers but there might be a case.

AI does work for you. The product of that work is what comes into question. I don't have the knowledge to write an application so I am going to have AI do it for me, is unacceptable. Using AI to gain a competitive advantage doesn't reflect the ideals of the programs.

The objective response to AI touched products is to reject it outright. I see some merit to AI in overcoming barriers but a lack of knowledge or I want to win don't make my grade.

What I expect, is that AI will give predictable proposals. Things done before. The usual.

I'd be surprised if AI use resulted in an application with a unique angle ...

I'm also in the "It depends how you use it." camp. I would encourage caution in using AI to determine what you plan to do in the RoadTest or project. You are the one committing to deliver on the test / procedure / content / etc. If it comes from your brain, you have an idea of what you are going to do - even as you propose it. Better to propose those things within your capacity than a "winning list" that you can't deliver on.

I personally believe that RoadTest and project applications are selected based on content and plan and not format and presentation. I also believe that some of the RoadTests and projects are a “Clash of the Titans”; great ideas and plans versus great ideas and plans. Selection is picking the best of the best. These always have great reviews. Just stay in the fight.

Here is a scenario: I've applied many times and have never been selected for a RoadTest. It is a lot of work to never get a return on investment. I will let AI do the work for me so I'm free to pursue other things. If I don't get selected it cost me less.

AI can help overcome some challenges. I don't personally have them but I know people that do. If AI gives them the ability to participate in our community, great. I'm discouraged when it is used to do work of which the output product creates an advantage.

I tend to look at the downside of technology before implementation, I know it comes for 20 years working in corporate, where the belief that throw technology at a problem would solve it. Yeah, not always.

I'm not totally against the use of AI in competitions, although I think it should be clearly identified in the blogs. If it is a road test application, it should also be stated if generative AI will be used in the road test review. I won't be using it on element14 but its use will be a critically useful/necessary skill going forward, so practicing with it is not a bad idea. If it is used, I expect the judges will take that factor into account when they choose winners.

I'm hoping that the use of AI (for purposes other than search, translate or grammar)) can be banned from Road tests.

Why ?

When I read someone's written work it's the same as when they talk to you - there is a direct connection from one human to another. I am happy to forgive other humans their foibles and eccentricities  and to be enthused by them or their interests and insights.

Such connection is not (currently) possible with a machine - and I wouldn't want it if it were.

So when AI is used there is a risk that I'm being fooled by a machine masquerading as a person - which I don't want.

We know about the issues with AI bias, lying and confusion - why would we want to let this sneaky stuff into Road Tests ?

MK

This reminds me of the '80s when at one point the use of word processors were banned for assignments as it was seen as giving an unfair advantage over handwritten submissions. ( Yet the final assignment often used to have to be typed up and most people outsourced that to a typing service. )

Anyone using a modern writing assistant though is already likely using some form of AI, as is anyone using a programming assistant.

Probably I should have developed a little bit more my question.

I'm not thinking on using it. This question came to my mind when applying for a Project, I thought it would be unfair if someone just asked the AI to write an application, and it was selected. A big part of a RoadTest or a Project is the application, so I will always think by myself. Why would I apply using an idea that it's not mine? Could I successfully complete the tasks in that case?

However, some of you explained some use cases that probably would be ok and could be a help: translating, grammar checking...

In 81 I hired a stenographer to type my thesis for college. $180 for 50K words. It was the final requirement for my degree. Every correction was another full page charge. Wow, I thought those memories were lost:)