I'm kinda ambivalent on the Druckenmiller WSJ case. He's admittedly a poor writer, and probably wouldn't have published anything had it not been for AI.

Obviously the WSJ staff shouldn't be using it in the final output, but if it's a prominent guest's opinion filtered through ChatGPT, I'm mostly fine with it.

▲

gizzlon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"He's admittedly a poor writer, and probably wouldn't have published anything.."

Maybe that would have been a totally acceptable outcome?

▲

tiahura 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No, because he had important points to make

Missing the opportunity to be informed about those points because of aiphobia seems suboptimal.

	▲	SoftTalker 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If he had points to make and was not a good writer, he could have worked with a ghost writer. This was quite common for celebrities.

▲

Jtsummers 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Obviously the WSJ staff shouldn't be using it in the final output

It was an op-ed, it's inappropriate to edit those heavily. So they either had to accept it more or less as submitted (with the usual basic editing around grammar, clarity, and typos), or not accept it. If they'd rewritten it, it would not have been an op-ed by Druckenmiller anymore, but someone else's interpretation of his submission.

▲

the_af 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If Druckenmiller had published his badly-written, poorly articulated opinions, it would have been more valuable. It'd be what he believes, written in the way he can manage to articulate. Maybe we could form an entirely appropriate bad opinion of him and his ideas and writing.

ChatGPT polish adds no value to this.