[nicolas-siplis]

One might entertain a contrary perspective on the issue of ChatGPT. Rather than being a monolithic linguistic equalizer, it could be seen as a tool, a canvas with a wide spectrum of applications. Sure, some may choose to use it as a crutch, diluting their creativity, yet others might harness it as a springboard, leveraging it to explore new ideas and articulate them in ways they might not have otherwise.

Consequently, the notion that ChatGPT could 'bring down' the more skilled among us may warrant further scrutiny. Isn't it possible that the 'upper echelons' might find novel ways to employ this tool, enhancing rather than undermining their capabilities?

Similarly, while summarization can be a blunt instrument, stripping away nuance, it can also be a scalpel, cutting through verbosity to deliver clear, concise communication. What if ChatGPT could serve as a tutor, teaching us the art of brevity?

The generated words may risk becoming 'blasé', as you eloquently put it, but again, isn't it contingent on how it's used? Can we not find ways to ensure our individual voice still shines through?

So, while I understand and respect your concerns, I posit that our apprehensions should not eclipse the potential that tools like ChatGPT offer us. It might not just be a 'parrot' – but a catalyst for the evolution of human communication.

Though I'm hoping you didn't suspect it, I should warn you this comment was written by you know what (who?).

[slickQ]

Ironically, this comment is better written than nearly all others under this post. I take LLMs to be net positive contributors to literary expression.

[verdverm]

What is better about the writing? What about the argumentation?

[dr_dshiv]

Did AI augment your thinking on the matter or did it do the thinking for you?

[refulgentis]

You turned up the “smart” knob too high, clocked it at sentence 3, but a hearty +1 from me

[chosenbreed37]

I enjoyed reading. May I ask what you used as a prompt?

[verdverm]

This is word soup just for the sake of using lots of fancy words. Be more concise ChatGPT... Bard is often better here

If ChatGPT did write this, as you allude to, then you didn't check your work. These counter arguments are distracted and irrelevant at times...

> Rather than being a monolithic linguistic equalizer

This has very different meaning than "language averager", from words to model (during training), vs linguistic equalizer, model to words (after training)

> it could be seen as a tool, a canvas with a wide spectrum of applications.

Yes, ofc, but we are talking about writing specificly, this is trending towards whataboutism.

> Sure, some may choose to use it as a crutch, diluting their creativity, yet others might harness it as a springboard, leveraging it to explore new ideas and articulate them in ways they might not have otherwise.

This is the point, not contrary to what has been said. The issue is with the crutch users. We know many people do this, yet this topic is barely mentioned, let alone addressed as the core of the discussion.

> ... the notion that ChatGPT could 'bring down' the more skilled among us ... Isn't it possible that the 'upper echelons' might find novel ways...

That is what I said

> but again, isn't it contingent on how it's used?

again, this is what I said, not reflecting this shows how limited this reply is in debate and argumentation

> What if ChatGPT could serve as a tutor, teaching us the art of brevity?

More whataboutism, irrelevant to the more focused discussion at hand

> So, while I understand and respect your concerns, I posit that our apprehensions should not eclipse the potential that tools like ChatGPT offer us. It might not just be a 'parrot' – but a catalyst for the evolution of human communication.

Sam might disagree here... though I do not completely. Why did it switch to "our" all of the sudden?

Not sure where I said it, but I have put forth the idea that it could, _could_, improve communication for many, by acting as a filter or editor. Again the issue at hand is that _many_ will not use it as a tool but as a replacement, there are many lazy people who do not want to write and will subsequently not critically read the output...

---

>> the issue is that many will substitute rather than augment

This is the core statement of my argument, "many" has been interpreted as something more, not partial. That it is lost within the reply is not surprising... a distracted and largely irrelevant word soup

In summary, this is the low quality writing one might come to expect from ChatGPT primary output, assuming the allusion is correctly interpreted... be clear if you use it

And sibling comments show that lack of critical reading and fawning for anything ChatGPT, whether it was or was not, people are assuming so based on your last ambiguous sentence.