[pixl97]

I'm guessing that you've never actually lived in that world...

When I got squggily written cursive letters from my grandma I could be pretty sure those were her words though up by herself, for the effort to accurately reproduce the consistent mess she made would have been great. But the moment we moved to the typewriter and then other digital means uniformly printed out on paper or screens you've really just assumed that it was written by the human you were expecting.

Furthermore, the vast majority of communications done in business long before now were not done by 'people' per say. They were done by processes. In the vast majority of business email that I type out there is a large amount of process that would not occur if I were talking to a friend. Moreso this communication is facilitative to some other end goal. If the entire process that existed could be automated away humanity would be better off as some mostly useless work would be eliminated.

Do you know why people are so willing to use AI to communicate with each other? Because at the end of the day they don't give two shits about communicating with you. It's an end goal of receiving a paycheck. There is no passion, no deep interest, no entertainment for them in doing so. It's a process demanded of them because of how we integrate Moloch into our modern lives.

[unyttigfjelltol]

If you come to the LLM with your message, and then use the LLM to iterate drafts and tighten your prose, then no, the exercise was exactly the opposite of a disrespect to the reader.

Sending half-baked, run-on, unvetted writing, when you easily could have chosen otherwise, is in fact the disrespectful choice.

[conartist6]

Why would I want everyone who talks to me to sound like a clone of the same vapid robot?

I would avoid that world at any cost of I was allowed a choice, but the point is that it's used as a weapon against you. Consent appears to be unnecessary.

[unyttigfjelltol]

You and I must be talking to different LLMs. For example, here's how R1 1776 would concisely rewrite your comment in a warm, generous wise voice:

I cherish the unique humanity in every voice. Forced robotic uniformity feels like an imposition, not a choice—and consent matters deeply.

The output is the the opposite of how you describe it, and vastly more persuasive than your own words. When it's persuasion that matters, use all tools available.

[conartist6]

I don't talk to it ever.

My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always.

Run AI on everything anyone says to you if you never want to have the difficulty of disagreeable critical thought again. I can't stop you.

[pixl97]

>My voice is MY VOICE and if you don't like it I couldn't care any less cause I speak and think for myself always.

If you believe that then there quite a few things you may be confused about the nature of your being.

Your voice is the assembly of society and people around you. If you actually thought your for yourself always you'd never get anything done in your life as you've had hundreds of millions of years to thinking from first principles to catch up on.

[conartist6]

I don't see those things as being in conflict. I can be a product of all the people I've ever spoken to or read the writing of, yet have my own beliefs and seek out a course of thought and action that is individual.

There are no great AI artists (artists who are AIs) or great AI artworks. Yet there are still loads of people throughout history whose individualism led them to ideas and accomplishments that we celebrate. People have the ability to think critically which allows us to create new understanding from existing knowledge, even and especially when there are flaws or contradictions in that knowledge (which if you look closely enough there almost always are).