> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.

Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.

▲ Planktonne 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think you're conflating a couple of different things here.

1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to.

2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless.

You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.

	▲	supermatt 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? `1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM. 2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship. 3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.` You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims. As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention. You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.