Draft talk:A unified language: Interlingua

Tank you, Joan, for your insightful contribution.

As you answered to the question how you used AI, you did it "for translating texts throughout the document, providing a more optimal translation, given that my language of thought is different from the one I used for this work.", in addition "to search for specific data, such as authors or perspectives on the topic discussed, that I couldn't find in other tools. These have been cited in the references section." And probably you used in a way that in professional context may serve, however, the likelihood analysis of content that can be generated by AI yielded that your contribution has a 32% of that kind, which is borderline for contributions to be accepted into the glossaLAB.edu collection. I hope you present and discuss your paper, so that you show you understand well the topic and the problems discussed –something that AI cannot do, though it may look like it does–. I understand AI can be used as a tool, but the very fact that AI can generate something alike means it cannot correspond to your own style, while the elaboration of the paper is an opportunity to develop your own style, no matter it has some linguistic flaws.

In addition, according to glossaLAB policy we have to avoid paragraphs that can be generated with Large Language Models. One of the reason is that we use it to map human understanding, analysing the concept occurrence network as proxy of the conceptual network in the minds of the authors, and we know AI has empty minds so far.

All in all, try to rephrase the paper in such a way that the text is AI generable only in a small extent –a little bit, since it only concerns some paragraphs–. In spite of that, I insist you did a good work,

José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2025 (CEST)