This is something I've noticed coming up more & more on writing forums etc. People share their work with beta readers, critique partners and the like, and the other person promptly uploads it to an AI, generates a report and hands it back.
The reader doing this is usually trying to be helpful. But given that getting critique from an AI is free and effortless, it should always be assumed the person asking for critique had a clear and specific reason for not doing so in the first place. Generally that's either a deeply held ethical objection or a refusal to help train the machine that's coming for our jobs (or both).
My point is, it can seem like a perfectly innocent, helpful thing to the person doing it, but the response I've seen from writers who've had it happen to them ranges from mild annoyance to such a deep sense of violation that they were physically sick.
The reader doing this is usually trying to be helpful. But given that getting critique from an AI is free and effortless, it should always be assumed the person asking for critique had a clear and specific reason for not doing so in the first place. Generally that's either a deeply held ethical objection or a refusal to help train the machine that's coming for our jobs (or both).
My point is, it can seem like a perfectly innocent, helpful thing to the person doing it, but the response I've seen from writers who've had it happen to them ranges from mild annoyance to such a deep sense of violation that they were physically sick.
