Some mentioned that market forces and competition would bring costs down, so they would wind up paying less overall. One person said they might pay more if AI was used because they felt the quality would be higher. Another noted that less time would mean lower hourly costs, while some felt the human expert might not really add any value at a certain point. the imperative to use AI, that one day human expertise alone would not be enough. Yet, another person felt those using generative AI were lazy or cutting corners.
Generally, most felt disclosure around the use brazil whatsapp number data of generative AI was a good thing so that people could make informed choices related to the output. One person likened it to knowing if salmon was farmed or wild. Certain respondents emphasized the type of work might make a difference as to whether or not disclosure was needed. For example, legal or high-stakes work might require disclosure, while marketing copy might not require it.
If There Is No Penalty for Using It, Why Not Disclose?
My hypothesis centered on the idea that there are negative impacts for disclosing the use of generative AI. The results of my (highly unscientific) poll seem to suggest otherwise. So, if there is no penalty, no devaluation of work, no stigma in using generative AI, why not disclose its use? Disclosure is widely deemed a good idea. It’s cited as a best practice in numerous generative AI guidance and some experts say it’s key to consumer trust.