Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Decide its Use or Non-Use Based on Long-Span Merits

Abstract

Dear Editor, The editorial,[1] and pros[2] and cons[3] discussion, on artificial intelligence (AI) use in medical writing is highly significant. The editorial well balances pros and cons, predicting the future writing to be a collaborative effort of AI and humans. I agree. Importantly, all these three fundamentally admit AI use but raise the question “to what extent.” I believe it depends on the individual author, under the condition that regulations should be adhered to. Considering what sort of usage “merits” you “in a long span” may provide different viewpoints. To what extent? Everyone will provide a different view. Let’s assume one challenging question: “whether AI use deteriorates future writing ability.” One may consider that de novo writing ability, long harbored by human writing, may decrease, while others may claim that cooperative writing with AI will nurture “new” writing skills—an ability that the new era demands. The discussion will not be settled. Even regarding the time-saving effect, some may consider that their own writing even more saves time than AI dependence. Furthermore, some use saved time for TV games instead of deep thinking. Writing is highly “personal.” Few will “personally” employ non-guideline-recommended treatment strategies, even though some room for personal freedom to choose remains. Different from medical practice, how to utilize AI in writing depends on one’s beliefs. After the public introduction of ChatGPT, I experimented with ChatGPT in writing[4] and wrote over 30 papers. At first, I, battered by its “super-ability,” felt my long-harbored writing skills had become obsolete. This disappointment soon disappeared. Personally, ChatGPT never expresses my nuanced thoughts. My own writing is much better than tasking ChatGPT with drafting the manuscript followed by my editing—better in all aspects, i.e., holding my personal tone, expressing delicate nuance, and even time-saving/time-consuming. One does not move solely based on theory, i.e., pros and cons discussion. One move based on whether it merits one or not. Importantly, one must consider merits and demerits not in a short, but a long span. The point is not whether to use AI in “this” writing, but in life-long writing. After 46 years of writing, I am confident that, when considering a “long span,” training one’s own writing skills is much more beneficial than heavily depending on AI. There are three reasons. Writing ability is indispensable even in editing AI-generated content. If one wishes to express nuanced details, it is much faster to write it oneself. Most importantly, writing oneself gives a life-long joy of achievement.[4,5] This sounds arrogant, but few can write a Nobel-Prize-class paper. No need to time-efficiently create many papers. You retire. You look at your papers’ offprints. They remind you of the struggling efforts. You are satisfied, “I did it myself.” This is a matter of self-esteem and self-satisfaction.[4,5] Thus, after contemplating pros and cons, and understanding up-to-date knowledge, one must decide one’s stance on AI use oneself. The point is what sort of AI use “merits” one in a “long span.” The decision can change according to situations surrounding AI. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Ähnliche Arbeiten