In the right hands AI assist can enhance productivity

Guy Curtis’ defence of Professor Pat Ellis and her use of AI is spot on (Letters, June 5). Ellis’ original article highlights a misunderstanding between the use of AI to completely generate written content (generative AI) and using it to organise ideas, research aspects of a topic and make suggestions regarding structure etc (assistive AI). The Herald’s own webpage, AI guidelines for Nine Publishing, states that editorial employees may use assistive AI “to do initial research, prompt ideas, analyse data, suggest headlines or key point summaries”. That’s a good policy that uses the technology to enhance productivity. The mistake Ellis may have made was not to have declared that she used assistive AI in preparing the article. The use of AI should be encouraged because of the enormous benefits it offers. But it must be properly regulated to manage the very high risks from both inadvertent or deliberate misuse. For full disclosure, I did not use either generative or assistive AI in writing this letter. However, I did use voice recognition software rather than typing – another instance of how predictive AI can improve productivity. Donald Hector, Beecroft

If Professor Guy Curtis is indeed “one of Australia’s leading researchers on academic integrity and student cheating”, then it certainly explains why our universities continue to fall down the global rankings, as his argument is, with due respect, nonsense. If Curtis can’t see the problem and lack of academic integrity in using undisclosed AI to write an article about undisclosed AI, then maybe he’s the wrong guy for the job. Shooting the messenger doesn’t refute the message. Chris Roylance, Paddington (Qld)

Professor Guy Curtis is only too willing to excuse the use of AI to write an essay on the use of AI. The irony seems lost on him. As a recent university graduate who prided themselves on their research and academic achievements without any such assistance, I am appalled that he thinks using AI is acceptable because it is more “efficient”. A senior academic who cannot be bothered to write their own material alone – reading it and rewriting it, honing it to best reflect their ideas – goes against the whole idea of both academia and creativity. Marea Reed, Randwick

Dr John Crozier highlights lobbying by the medicinal cannabis industry in his opinion piece (“As a trauma surgeon, I know cannabis kills. Don’t green-light ‘medicinal’ drivers”, June 5). We have also read how approvals from the Therapeutic Goods Administration for cannabis products are extremely limited, yet doctors are using “special access p