zlacker

>>flornt+(OP)
I think it's fair to use AI as an editor, to get feedback about how your ideas are packaged.

It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.)

But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude.

>>nicbou+v2
My natural reaction when I detect a writing of AI is now turning away. We have too much to read and too little time to waste on mimicry and not really what people thought or believed.

>>sinuhe+3V1
Yeah. Even when it appears and feels thoughtful, there's still no real intent underlying it, and frankly even if there was, the problem with AI output is that it ultimately gravitates towards similar outputs in a way that real human thoughts don't.