The rollout of generative AI has had a massive impact on all aspects of writing. Almost every industry has felt the shift. It is easy to see why. Creating a text in minutes is fast, convenient, and affordable.
A human writer will never be able to compete with AI when it comes to speed. So, where does the debate originate, then? Well, there is much more to creating good content than just speed and affordability. It is especially significant for fields such as law, Healthcare, and Academia.
An AI writing generator is not always the best choice in those cases. This article will explore why it is not and what the alternatives are.
AI or Human Text? Core Differences
The main difference between these two options is quite apparent. A human content writer can create an original, innovative, and captivating text. On the contrary, AI writing tools cannot create something original due to the nature of their work.
Generative AI, such as ChatGPT or Jasper, works on the same principle. The algorithm is fed a massive dataset of various texts. It allows it to learn patterns, identify them correctly, and repeat them in a requested order.
Pattern recognition and repetition are what allow such tools to generate texts that look more or less human-like. Some tools are better suited for this, while others are less effective. Yet, the underlying architecture is the same.
This creates two main problems with any AI generated text example: it is never an original idea. The algorithm has no capability for critical thinking. It does not create anything. It compiles patterns based on the information learned previously. The second problem is that the result is only as good as the initial dataset.
For instance, if there is any bias in the initial information, it can and probably will be transferred to the sample. After all, the technology was created by humans. Humans make mistakes, and all of their errors transfer to technology as well.
Another important argument in the AI vs human writing debate is context and nuance. Even the most advanced tool does not recognize intent. It has no emotional intelligence and lacks a broader context of the situation.
Surely, people do talk to chatbots like ChatGPT, and it may even seem like a genuine conversation. However, the algorithm recognizes the patterns and mimics human behavior. It provides the answers you’d love to hear, not the ones you may really need.
What Is Better for College?
Long before any of the AI tools were widely available on the market, students used the help of professional writers. Platforms like EssayPro offer reliable services and provide almost no risks to learners. They offer students a space where they can hire experts and work together on something valuable.
The answer to the question is simple. A human essay writer is always better for academia than AI. Here are the main reasons why:
- Scholarly assignments usually have the same purpose of teaching students critical thinking and developing ideas. AI has no critical thinking capabilities. So it cannot do the core thing, which makes it unsuitable.
- It is quite easy to spot the difference between an AI or human text, especially for professors. From structure to wording and repetition, an experienced reader will see right through the algorithm.
- Online tools cannot add value to the topic. They are not capable of creating a compelling argument or providing a new perspective. There is no originality, which is imperative for academia.
- If there is a bias present in the initial information, it will appear in the generated content as well.
- AI is not fact-checking anything. Often, it will create fake facts, links, or even study results.
- If it uses real and credible data, it is usually not the latest or the most relevant one.
Overall, the writers vs AI debate is relatively straightforward when it comes to quality. If you need a filling content to put on a marketing page that no one reads, AI will do well. However, if you need an insightful and academically valuable text, it cannot compete with professionals.
The main risk for students here is also that generated content is easily detectable. Even if you cannot see it with your naked eye, there are hundreds of online detection tools to use. If someone has a question, “Is it AI or human text?” getting an answer will take a couple of clicks. Of course, professors use those or rely on their expertise to evaluate the authenticity of texts.
If a student turns in a generated assignment, they risk getting harsh penalties, up to being expelled from the institution. On the other hand, working with a professional writer does not pose such intense risks.
Are There Any Pros to Using AI?
Sure, there are many pros of such solutions; otherwise, there would be no question of AI writing vs human work.
The main advantages of generative tools are:
- Speed. It takes from seconds to a couple of minutes for an algorithm to generate a lengthy piece of content. A prompt usually does not take long to create, either. So it is incredibly time-efficient.
- Affordability. There are plenty of free solutions out there. The paid subscription is also not that expensive. Generative tools are more affordable than human content creators, which is why a lot of businesses use them.
- Consistency. The results are usually pretty consistent and lack common human errors like typos, misspellings, or mistakes. Algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data in seconds, which no human can do.
When it comes to speed and affordability, the AI vs human writing question looks completely different. However, it is not the main point of any scholarly work. As a result, the generated content should be heavily edited and rewritten.
Students have to fact-check every source and rewrite repetitive or overcomplicated sentences. It also adds time, which undermines the whole speed argument. There were multiple cases when algorithms gave wrong answers. They can create their own facts to add volume to the content.
Human or AI text: How Students Can Use AI Effectively
At the same time, solutions like ChatGPT can be pretty helpful for students, not in creating the assignment but in the preliminary work.
Here are some of the examples of how to use such algorithms ethically and to the maximum benefit:
- Finding sources. A tool can quickly find relevant sources among databases like JSTOR, for instance. Instead of scrolling through Google results, students can create a prompt to find credible and fresh data.
- Summarizing lengthy texts. Let’s say you have a source of 50 pages, but you are not sure if it is helpful in your work. Instead of wasting time on reading it through, you can ask AI to summarize the main points. Based on the result, you can decide to read it and add it to the works cited or not.
- Creating an outline. When it comes to structure, generative tools are great. After all, these are patterns they know all about. You can create an outline for any type of work in seconds.
- Finding ideas and brainstorming. Yes, those might not be original in themselves, but they can serve as an inspiration. Or they can become a lead one follows to form their own perspective based on research.
Moreover, AI vs human writing examples can both serve as learning tools. Students can generate samples to better understand the prompt. This will not create a valuable text, but it can provide a good enough example of how to do something.
AI Writing vs Human Writing: Conclusion
Currently, generative tools cannot compete with humans in terms of quality and originality. They lack critical thinking and emotional intelligence. Moreover, they cannot understand the broad context, intent, and nuance as humans.
That’s why working with experts on platforms like EssayPro is a much better option for students. It takes longer and is not free, but the results are drastically better, and there is almost no risk of getting penalized.
At the same time, AI can be a valuable addition to the learning process. It can simplify manual processes, find interesting information, and propose outlines. In some cases, it can be used as a sample or inspiration.
Yet, there is nothing more creative and powerful than a human mind when it comes to academic work.
