Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am a school principal, and using AI to write evaluations has given me back years of my life. I take copious notes when I’m observing and have great reflection conferences with teachers. That is where the real work happens—in the conversation. But then I have to write everything up which takes forever. Using AI has changed that. Of course, it’s only as good as what I put in and what I check.
I’m a teacher and absolutely fine with this as long as you’re accepting of my AI use. I use it as I write my lesson plans as well as any post-observation reflection paperwork. Because I agree: the real work is the teaching. The excessive documentation keeps me from doing that.
And I agree it saves me time that I now use grading papers.
I’m fine with it as long as you have measures in place to ensure students aren’t using to write assignments that you’re grading. Because then it would become AI grading AI.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I use it for an email that might have taken me 30 mins to craft. For example, a member writes in wanting something we cannot do for them - I tell AI why we need to say no and ask them to write an empathetic response that still says no. Instead of me worrying if i am going to make member mad with my writing, I tweak what AI wrote and less than 5 minutes and I have the perfect response
Thing is, I can detect AI writing a mile away. If you sent me that instead of a personal response, I would quit your organization and stop being a member. I would be so incredibly offended.
I am worth the time it takes to give me a human response.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never. I hate it, and in my field - law - it notoriously hallucinates. I love to write, am an excellent writer, and write quickly. I love language and sentence composition, so why would I have something do it for me, especially if it will do a poor job. Additionally, for advice to a client, a fair amount of my work is tone and nuance. I am not trusting that to an AI. And then too, sometimes I am not entirely sure of what my view of an issue will be until I write it out. The writing process helps me clarify and retain the information. And since my practice is built on expertise, I need to have that expertise at hand when I walk into a meeting and am asked unexpected questions. Can't do that if I rely on AI.
Lawyer in a very technical field and this is me too.
When i've asked AI some legal technical questions, the answers were astounding wrong and mixed up.
I also really like writing and am very good at it. When i get AI written product, I have to review the whole thing and rewrite it (like an intern). It is much faster for me to do it well the first time. Also agree that there's so much value to me doing the research directly, reading the initial document. That's the only way you REALLY learn the hyper complicated nuances of the law, not asking AI for one discrete answer. If i didn't put in the time for the first client's question, then that's a missed opportunity for me to just generally learn the material. And knowing the material backwards and forwards is what sets me apart from others.
I know that AI can make some jobs a lot more efficient, but my understanding so far is that those jobs are low knowledge, low barrier to entry, being done by not particularly inefficient people. Like, when someone says "it helps me write an email that would have taken me 30 minutes to get the tone right", this is not a thing in my job. I'm drafting that email faster than i could instruct and review AI.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never. I hate it, and in my field - law - it notoriously hallucinates. I love to write, am an excellent writer, and write quickly. I love language and sentence composition, so why would I have something do it for me, especially if it will do a poor job. Additionally, for advice to a client, a fair amount of my work is tone and nuance. I am not trusting that to an AI. And then too, sometimes I am not entirely sure of what my view of an issue will be until I write it out. The writing process helps me clarify and retain the information. And since my practice is built on expertise, I need to have that expertise at hand when I walk into a meeting and am asked unexpected questions. Can't do that if I rely on AI.
On the other hand, as a client, it's great. I'm a trustee for a relative. A question came up and I fed the trust agreement into chatGPT so I could ask it questions before I met with an actual lawyer. It was terrific as way for me to search and understand that document without knowing the terminology. So I was way better prepared to meet with the lawyer and I was better able to understand the conversation. It's not like I asked it for legal advice. But I did ask it things like "what does the trust agreement say happens if Larla dies before Larlo?" and "what does the trust agreement say about if Larla marries and has a stepchild?" and it was great at directing me to the relevant sections.
But always with the mindset that it could be wrong so if I truly need to know, I need to read the real results, ask a real doctor, etc. Anonymous wrote:Never. I hate it, and in my field - law - it notoriously hallucinates. I love to write, am an excellent writer, and write quickly. I love language and sentence composition, so why would I have something do it for me, especially if it will do a poor job. Additionally, for advice to a client, a fair amount of my work is tone and nuance. I am not trusting that to an AI. And then too, sometimes I am not entirely sure of what my view of an issue will be until I write it out. The writing process helps me clarify and retain the information. And since my practice is built on expertise, I need to have that expertise at hand when I walk into a meeting and am asked unexpected questions. Can't do that if I rely on AI.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am a school principal, and using AI to write evaluations has given me back years of my life. I take copious notes when I’m observing and have great reflection conferences with teachers. That is where the real work happens—in the conversation. But then I have to write everything up which takes forever. Using AI has changed that. Of course, it’s only as good as what I put in and what I check.
I’m a teacher and absolutely fine with this as long as you’re accepting of my AI use. I use it as I write my lesson plans as well as any post-observation reflection paperwork. Because I agree: the real work is the teaching. The excessive documentation keeps me from doing that.
And I agree it saves me time that I now use grading papers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never. I hate it, and in my field - law - it notoriously hallucinates. I love to write, am an excellent writer, and write quickly. I love language and sentence composition, so why would I have something do it for me, especially if it will do a poor job. Additionally, for advice to a client, a fair amount of my work is tone and nuance. I am not trusting that to an AI. And then too, sometimes I am not entirely sure of what my view of an issue will be until I write it out. The writing process helps me clarify and retain the information. And since my practice is built on expertise, I need to have that expertise at hand when I walk into a meeting and am asked unexpected questions. Can't do that if I rely on AI.
On the other hand, as a client, it's great. I'm a trustee for a relative. A question came up and I fed the trust agreement into chatGPT so I could ask it questions before I met with an actual lawyer. It was terrific as way for me to search and understand that document without knowing the terminology. So I was way better prepared to meet with the lawyer and I was better able to understand the conversation. It's not like I asked it for legal advice. But I did ask it things like "what does the trust agreement say happens if Larla dies before Larlo?" and "what does the trust agreement say about if Larla marries and has a stepchild?" and it was great at directing me to the relevant sections.
Anonymous wrote:I am a school principal, and using AI to write evaluations has given me back years of my life. I take copious notes when I’m observing and have great reflection conferences with teachers. That is where the real work happens—in the conversation. But then I have to write everything up which takes forever. Using AI has changed that. Of course, it’s only as good as what I put in and what I check.
Anonymous wrote:Never. I hate it, and in my field - law - it notoriously hallucinates. I love to write, am an excellent writer, and write quickly. I love language and sentence composition, so why would I have something do it for me, especially if it will do a poor job. Additionally, for advice to a client, a fair amount of my work is tone and nuance. I am not trusting that to an AI. And then too, sometimes I am not entirely sure of what my view of an issue will be until I write it out. The writing process helps me clarify and retain the information. And since my practice is built on expertise, I need to have that expertise at hand when I walk into a meeting and am asked unexpected questions. Can't do that if I rely on AI.