Draft talk:Emotional Trust in AI

Dear Ann-Marie,

Thank you for the changes you have introduced, which enables to move your contribution to the main name-space. The reflection you have done is really good and up-to-date regarding current challenges. There's a little detail I would change. You talk about AI as 'intelligence', however, and following you own discussion, it is rather a simulated intelligence, and as much as a faken egg is not an egg, neither it is a faken intelligence. That's the reason why I have stressed Krippendorff definition of AI as an artifact that carries out operations that, if performed by humans, would require intelligence.

I hope that through the considerations of the topics held during the lectures, the open discussions, and particularly through your own inquiries, you got to appreciate the importance of embracing a critical stance towards what simply has the appearance of being a good social project. I hope you have enjoyed the journey too.

I wish you a successful career, and in case you think I may be of any help don't hesitate to contact me. All the best,

José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2025 (CEST)

_____

Dear Ann-Marie,

Tank you for your insightful contribution and the discussion you held.

As you answered to the question how you used AI, you did it "to help refine the clarity, structure, and tone of [your] paper. It assisted with rephrasing ideas, reorganizing sections for better flow, offering feedback on structure, and summarizing long texts to support my understanding and analysis." 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 97% of that kind of content (89% generable, 7% corresponding to paraphrasing), which is too high for contributions to be accepted into the glossaLAB.edu collection. In the presentation and discussion of your paper, you showed that you understand 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. In spite of that, I insist you did a good presentation. I hope you understand; and again, thank you for your interesting contribution,

José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2025 (CEST)