mobrienv

The issue is that you're conflating the process of transcription with the act of expression. If I feed an LLM my own raw research notes and technical observations and use it to help structure those thoughts into a readable essay, I haven't "avoided writing".

The "why would I read what nobody bothered to write" argument only applies to people who ask a bot to hallucinate an opinion from scratch. It doesn't apply to authors using the tool to clarify their own ideas.

"Sharing the prompt" is a category error. It assumes the value of a piece is in the instructions given to the model, rather than the proprietary input or the iterative editing that follows. There is a hard line between using an LLM to generate content from a void and using it to synthesize specific ideas.

If someone asks a model to "write a post about X," they are outsourcing the thinking, which results in the homogenized voice everyone is tired of.

Treating the act of refining text as a confession of shame misses the point of how writing works. Whether a draft begins as a model output, a dictation, or a scribbled note, the final responsibility belongs to the person who hits publish.

Improving prose to remove predictable patterns is the work of an editor. This process ensures the content is worth reading and respects the audience's time.

Comparing a software tool to "poisoning a well" turns a debate over style into a moral crisis that doesn’t fit the situation. If the information is accurate and the writing is clear, the water in the well is fine, regardless of the pump used to get it there. If the water tastes good, complaining about the plumbing is just a distraction.

Interesting I recently added the ability to receive a daily email digest. Would just need a way to read it out. I'll look into what a conversational voice chat might look like.