It sounds great does it not, easier grant writing. But one should really think this through more dynamically and over some time. You know, like systems thinking.
1 Let's suppose it makes grant writing easier for you, would it not make it easier for your competition as well? My guess is 'yes'.

2 Does that mean that everybody's grant writing quality goes up? Let's suppose 'yes'.

3 Then what does that do to the sponsors' review processes? My guess : they will notice that the overall quality increase makes it more difficult to be selective. One way out of that is to raise the criteria.

The result may very well be that those who use ChatGPT will, after a period of some gain, eventually win nothing. And those who do not use a it, will loose from those who do. It then becomes a classic story about the 'haves' and the 'have nots''. Not merely, who has access to internet, but who has access to a smart chatbox. For now they are for free, but that may change.

Interesting thoughts. 

1. Great - if it makes it easier for everyone GREAT. If we can all spend less time writing about what makes us good and worthy of funding  it means we can spend more time on the actual work. And I can only speak for WILDLABS, but most of our funding comes from people seeing our work and talking to us about what we could do together, rather than us writing long applications about work we could be doing and competing against other projects - though we do do this too. That's not true for everyone, but for us it's going to mean alleviating a pretty significant administrative barrier (and already is). 

2. And as someone who reviews a lot of grant and job applications, if it improves the overall quality - even better. I'd rather read across the board good applications and decide on merit, rather than deciding based on who understand how to construct a compelling case for a particular application. 

3. Tricky one - but surely it's more equitable to have tighter criteria rather than knocking half hour because of weaker writing? 

This last point is interesting and one I hadn't thought about - longer term access could mean entrenching more inequality rather than alleviating it. I dont have any answers, but it's given me something to think about. 

Great information! Thank you for sharing this. I actually have Masters in Zoology and have done some field work in Marine Conservation. Since then I have worked in Science education and eventually switched to Software Programming. My dream has always been to work in Conservation, however life happened and I had to give up on this pipe dream. I currently work as a Developer in a contractor role for the Federal Government. Would someone with my experience have an advantage in conservation Tech?

I think the real demand in conservation tech is for transdisciplianry individuals. If you look at all the stand-out people in this space they are people who occupy multiple domains that are traditionally isolated. These are people who talk fluently in computer science and ecology, for example. Not only this, they are also people who create and imagine in ways that intertwin ideas and concepts across these domains. Its these people, thinking in these ways, that lead to innovations that really move us forward. Some of these people started out where you are now, having crossed domains through their career and then seeing opportunities to bring these skills together in imaginative ways. 

I couldn't agree more with both of these comments tom! I'm reading hundreds (literally hundreds) of applications for open WILDLABS roles at the moment, and the ones that stand out are those where it's really clear they're following genuine curiosity across different disciplines. If you're in conservation, it's the evidence of interest in tech (courses, projects, things you're trying and learning yourself). For tech, it's getting into conservation - all the things you mentioned.