Anyone up for a Grammarly AI experiment?

[Rob_Royale]

This would require someone who has the full paid version of Grammarly (which I don't) and a story where Grammarly wasn't used. I'm very curious just how much of a change the full version of Grammarly would have on AI detection.

So.
1. Use this AI content detector - https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/
2. Put the first 5K words of the story through that detector. Record the result, given as a percentage of being human generated.
3. Create a second copy of your story that you can play with without messing up your original.
4. Then run that copy through the full paid Grammarly checker and accept all changes. Grammar, word use, sentence structure, the works.
5. Then put the first 5K words through the AI detector again and record the new result.
6. Post results.

I realize this will vary from writer to writer, but if everyone who feels like participating uses the same AI detector and full Grammarly it might shed a little light on just how much effect it has on getting flagged for AI. And it will either confirm our fears about Grammarly or assuage them.

 

[gunhilltrain]

This seems like a good indication that the paid version of Grammarly is more trouble than it's worth. I let the free version look for errors (yet sometimes it does require judgment calls anyway) and that's enough for me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I input 4940 words from my most popular story, Late Night On The Loveseat With Mom. The result was 96% human generated.

I started with the Grammarly change, but it got too cumbersome and time consuming so I didn't finish.

I did enough of it, however, that I could see how if you accepted every change Grammarly proposed it would make my prose seem less human.

It reinforced my view that tools like Grammarly are useful for identifying issues in your story to look at, but not as useful for their proposed solutions. There's no substitute for your own judgment. I use proofing/editing tools all the time but I NEVER automatically accept suggestions.

 

[MrPixel]

And feed the monster? Anything you run through the algorithm is helping train the model. I'll pass.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I did enough of it, however, that I could see how if you accepted every change Grammarly proposed it would make my prose seem less human.

Thanks for at least considering it. I was hoping the results would help us make informed decisions concerning the use of the tool.

 

[Rob_Royale]

And feed the monster? Anything you run through the algorithm is helping train the model. I'll pass.

Most likely every story that is in the public domain, has already been entered. At the least.

 

[MrPixel]

Most likely every story that is in the public domain, has already been entered. At the least.

Of course. But each new source adds its own nuance to the soup. Remember, you're unique. Just like everyone else.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Thanks for at least considering it. I was hoping the results would help us make informed decisions concerning the use of the tool.

Learn the basic rules of grammar yourself, problem solved.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Thanks for at least considering it. I was hoping the results would help us make informed decisions concerning the use of the tool.

I use Grammarly for:

• Spelling
• Punctuation
• grammar
• to highlight long sentences/sentences it perceives as making no sense. (It's great for making you focus your mind on what you've written.)

I never let it write for me or replace a word, especially when it wants to change "I'm gonna come" to "I'm gonna arrive."

Learn the basic rules of grammar yourself, problem solved.

If you give 10 proofreaders the same first draft of a story, you'll get back 10 different versions of what's correct.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If you give 10 proofreaders the same first draft of a story, you'll get back 10 different versions of what's correct.

So what? That's what happens when you give something to human beings, you get individual, nuanced, varied responses; not bland "one rule fits all, for every occasion".

There's plenty of writers here, and in the three century history of the novel, with sufficient command of grammar to get by.

 

[StillStunned]

Is this a good moment to bring up that thread I started a while back about learning to write without AI?

 

[MrHereWriting]

So what? That's what happens when you give something to human beings, you get individual, nuanced, varied responses; not bland "one rule fits all, for every occasion".

There's plenty of writers here, and in the three century history of the novel, with sufficient command of grammar to get by.

Did I offend you? You responded like I gave you a backhand to the face, and before you start acting tough about "no one would ever backhand me" remember, we're in a virtual playground.

"So what?" you ask.

So, unless you're somehow one of these magical people that make no errors, a tool to check your spelling, punctuation, grammar, and anything else you wanted checked, is a good option for some people when they don't have someone else to proofread their work or want someone else to proofread their work.

If people can't agree on 'basic grammar' then what does it matter if someone uses a tool to help them check the basics? Lighten up and be glad we live in a world with options.

 

[SimonDoom]

If you give 10 proofreaders the same first draft of a story, you'll get back 10 different versions of what's correct.

I haven't exactly found this to be true. I've had some experience writing and editing in journalism and also editing a professional journal, as well as many years of writing professionally with experienced and capable colleagues who write as well. I think if you select 10 experienced proofreaders with a solid command of grammar and assign them a messy article or story there will, at a minimum, be substantial overlap in their recommendations, although there will be some differences as well.

No doubt about it, there's substantial wiggle room for differences in taste and judgment, but I think there IS substantial agreement on the basics of grammar among those who've learned it and practiced it.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I haven't exactly found this to be true. I've had some experience writing and editing in journalism and also editing a professional journal, as well as many years of writing professionally with experienced and capable colleagues who write as well. I think if you select 10 experienced proofreaders with a solid command of grammar and assign them a messy article or story there will, at a minimum, be substantial overlap in their recommendations, although there will be some differences as well.

No doubt about it, there's substantial wiggle room for differences in taste and judgment, but I think there IS substantial agreement on the basics of grammar among those who've learned it and practiced it.

Too much is being read into the meaning behind my comment.

 

[SimonDoom]

Too much is being read into the meaning behind my comment.

OK, but if that's so I'm not sure what you meant.

I agreed with the first part of what you wrote, because I too use tools for things like grammar and punctuation, but I use them mainly to identify possible problems, and then I rely on my own knowledge and judgment to settle issues of grammar and word choice. The tools, in my experience, are great for catching things, but not necessarily for making the final decisions.

Your second comment seemed to suggest you were trying to rebut EB's advice to learn the rules of grammar on the ground that people, in your own words, "can't agree on 'basic grammar.'" In my experience, which may differ from yours, that's not so. People who actually have spent a lot of time writing in an academic or professional environment in which their skills are being tested and critiqued on a daily basis do, in fact, agree substantially on what constitutes sound writing.

 

[MrHereWriting]

OK, but if that's so I'm not sure what you meant.

I agreed with the first part of what you wrote, because I too use tools for things like grammar and punctuation, but I use them mainly to identify possible problems, and then I rely on my own knowledge and judgment to settle issues of grammar and word choice. The tools, in my experience, are great for catching things, but not necessarily for making the final decisions.

Your second comment seemed to suggest you were trying to rebut EB's advice to learn the rules of grammar on the ground that people, in your own words, "can't agree on 'basic grammar.'" In my experience, which may differ from yours, that's not so. People who actually have spent a lot of time writing in an academic or professional environment in which their skills are being tested and critiqued on a daily basis do, in fact, agree substantially on what constitutes sound writing.

Learning the basic rules of grammar doesn't solve your problem if what you're looking for is reassurance, especially when self-editing is an oxymoron, and reassurance can come in different forms, even if it's just varied opinions on where to put the commas in sound writing.

 

[SimonDoom]

Learning the basic rules of grammar doesn't solve your problem if what you're looking for is reassurance, especially when self-editing is an oxymoron, and reassurance can come in different forms, even if it's just varied opinions on where to put the commas in sound writing.

I would agree with that, and would add that IMO one shouldn't be looking for reassurance. One should be looking to be better, and to be willing to take one's lumps and listen to criticism to be better.

Opinions vary, and they vary even among the experienced, but they don't vary quite as much among the experienced as among the inexperienced. The more experienced your pool of proofreaders, the more likely their suggestions, while not the same, will at least substantially overlap and provide helpful guidance on how to get better.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I would agree with that, and would add that IMO one shouldn't be looking for reassurance. One should be looking to be better, and to be willing to take one's lumps and listen to criticism to be better.

Opinions vary, and they vary even among the experienced, but they don't vary quite as much among the experienced as among the inexperienced. The more experienced your pool of proofreaders, the more likely their suggestions, while not the same, will at least substantially overlap and provide helpful guidance on how to get better.

Are you kidding me? You can't recognize that 'reassurance' in this case means a proofreader, an editor, someone or something, whether human or program, that helps you look over your writing, no matter how good or knowledgeable you may be as a writer?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Are you kidding me? You can't recognize that 'reassurance' in this case means a proofreader, an editor, someone or something, whether human or program, that helps you look over your writing, no matter how good or knowledgeable you may be as a writer?

This is nonsense. Reassurance, in the case of actual insecurity, can only really come from the intended audience.

 

[StillStunned]

Are you kidding me? You can't recognize that 'reassurance' in this case means a proofreader, an editor, someone or something, whether human or program, that helps you look over your writing, no matter how good or knowledgeable you may be as a writer?

I'd call that "assurance", as in "quality assurance" (which is how I market my editing and proofreading services to clients). And you shouldn't need an AI for this if you've ever learned grammar. A basic grammar and spellcheck in your word processor should be enough.

(FWIW, I always switch off the grammar check. Always. Read Aloud will reveal more than a grammar check, and probably more than any editor or proofreader who isn't a professional.)

 

[MrHereWriting]

This is nonsense. Reassurance, in the case of actual insecurity, can only really come from the intended audience.

You still can't follow a conversation since the last time we interacted, and that was a long time ago, I believe.

I'd call that "assurance", as in "quality assurance" (which is how I market my editing and proofreading services to clients). And you shouldn't need an AI for this if you've ever learned grammar. A basic grammar and spellcheck in your word processor should be enough.

(FWIW, I always switch off the grammar check. Always. Read Aloud will reveal more than a grammar check, and probably more than any editor or proofreader who isn't a professional.)

You can call it assurance, that works.

I called it reassurance, referencing one's editing skills and wanting a second opinion, that works too. Someone is assuring the quality while the writer is being reassured about the readiness of their work.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Did I offend you? You responded like I gave you a backhand to the face, and before you start acting tough about "no one would ever backhand me" remember, we're in a virtual playground.

No, you didn't offend me. You were making a point that ten humans would give you ten answers, implying that was a negative, whereas in a creative space it's the biggest positive there is. You might choose to be like all the rest, I certainly don't.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I too use tools for things like grammar and punctuation, but I use them mainly to identify possible problems, and then I rely on my own knowledge and judgment to settle issues of grammar and word choice. The tools, in my experience, are great for catching things, but not necessarily for making the final decisions.

Same, and I can't count the times I've thrown proper grammar to the wind because I just want it that way. Especially in dialog, but also descriptive text because the wrong grammar fits the situation better than the proper.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You still can't follow a conversation since the last time we interacted, and that was a long time ago, I believe.

Okay.

 

[MrHereWriting]

No, you didn't offend me. You were making a point that ten humans would give you ten answers, implying that was a negative, whereas in a creative space it's the biggest positive there is. You might choose to be like all the rest, I certainly don't.

You took it negatively.

Okay.