Talk:Cognition

Dear Naia,

You have provided a good overview of the field you intended to cover, which is clearly very broad. However, you pitifully used some texts directly provided by AI (I have marked the automatically detected as such with a confident factor of 98%). There's no problem to use AI as a tool, but it shouldn't be used as the ultimate way to express statements. Your re-elaboration is fundamental to properly articulating what you have dealt with before and later in the article. You must be the real author, even though AI may provide you the hints that may help you to delve into a topic you don't know how well how to start with, or how to continue when you arrive at a certain point. In the future, I recommend you -as it starts to be indicated in the style manuals- to refer to the AI as the information source utilised as support of a specific statement, or quote as you do with a human author using quotation marks when the expression is used literally.

In any case, the amount of this kind of content is under certain control (the combination of not cited published contents and AI generated textaround is about 30%) and you frame well the different parts. Since the extent of your contribution was beyond the established threshold this lack of proper authorship doesn't hinder significantly your grading which is modulated by the factors of AI authorship quote and similarity index.

All the best,

José María Díaz Nafría (discusión) 08:24 25 jul 2023 (CEST)