> It would be more human to handwrite your blog post instead. I don’t see how this is a good argument. The use of tools to help with writing and communication should make it easier to convey your thoughts, and that itself is valuable.

Whether I hand write a blog post or type it into a computer, I'm the one producing the string of characters I intend for you to read. If I use AI to write it, I am not. This is a far, far, far more important distinction than whatever differences we might imagine arise from hand writing vs. typing.

> your thoughts

No, they aren't! Not if you had AI write the post for you. That's the problem!

▲

zanellato19 10 days ago | parent | next [-]

The idea that an AI can keep the authors voice just means it is so unoriginal that it doesn't make a difference.

▲

gr4vityWall 10 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I'm the one producing the string of characters I intend for you to read. If I use AI to write it, I am not. This is a far, far, far more important distinction than whatever differences we might imagine

That apparently is not the case for a lot of people.

▲

caconym_ 10 days ago | parent | next [-]

s/important/significant/, then, if that helps make the point clearer.

I cannot tell you that it objectively matters whether or not an article was written by a human or an LLM, but it should be clear to anybody that it is at least a significant difference in kind vs. the analogy case of handwriting vs. typing. I think somebody who won't acknowledge that is either being intellectually dishonest, or has already had their higher cognitive functions rotted away by excessive reliance on LLMs to do their thinking for them. The difference in kind is that of using power tools instead of hand tools to build a chair, vs. going out to a store and buying one.

▲

gr4vityWall 9 days ago | parent [-]

I wasn't even arguing with you, nor saying that it doesn't matter to me, rather just pointing an out an observation.

> I think somebody who won't acknowledge that is either being intellectually dishonest, or has already had their higher cognitive functions rotted away by excessive reliance on LLMs to do their thinking for them.

This feels too aggressive for a good faith discussion on this site. Even if you do think that, there's no point in insulting the humans who could engage with you in that conversation.

	▲	caconym_ 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I wasn't even arguing with you, nor saying that it doesn't matter to me, rather just pointing an out an observation. My interpretation of your comment was that it related to my use of the word "important", which has a more subjective connotation than "significant" and arguably allows my comment to be interpreted in two ways. The second way (that I feel people should care more about the distinction I highlighted) was not my intended meaning, since obviously people can care about whatever they want. It was a relevant observation of imprecise wording on my part. > there's no point in insulting the humans who could engage with you in that conversation. There would be no point in engaging them in that conversation, either. Disagreeing with me that the difference in kind I highlighted is important is fine, and maybe even an interesting conversation for both sides. Disagreeing with me that there is a significant difference in kind is just nonsensical, like arguing that there's no meaningful difference, at any level, between painting a painting yourself and buying one from a store. How can you approach a conversation like that? Yet positions like that appear in internet arguments all the time, which are generally arguments between anonymous strangers who often have no qualms about embracing total intellectual dishonesty because the[ir] goal is just to make their opponent mad enough that they forget the original point they were trying to make and go chasing the goalposts all over the room. The only winning move is not to play, which requires being honest with yourself about who you're talking to and what they're trying to get out of the conversation. I am willing to share that honesty. I am, to be clear, not saying you are one of these people.

▲

sigwinch 8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I don’t agree with that quoted. If you experiment with replying to emails by hand, you’ll practically avoid long threads. If you experiment with avoiding as much typing as possible by allowing an AI substitute, you’ll probably end up erasing large portions. AI pad-out followed by human pare-down might be closer to handwritten.

▲

alyxya 10 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think of technology as offering a sliding scale for how much assistance it can provide. Your words could be literally the keys you press, or you could use some tool that fixes punctuation and spelling, or something that fixes the grammar in your sentence, or rewrites sentences to be more concise and flow more smoothly, etc. If I used AI to rewrite a paragraph to better express my idea, I still consider it fundamentally my thoughts. I agree that it can get to the point where using AI doesn’t constitute my thoughts, but it’s very much a gray area.