[timeinput]

You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

You could even write a plugin for your favorite web browser to do that to every site you visit.

It seems hard to achieve the inverse that is (would you rather I use i.e.?) rewrite this paragraph as the original author did before they had an AI re--write it to make it clean, (--do you like oxford commas, and em/en dashes! Just prompt your AI) and easier to read

[phs318u]

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

For those coming from a language other than English, you are more likely to lose information by using a tool to “reconstruct” meaning from poorly phrased English as an input, as opposed to the poster using a tool to generate meaningful English from their (presumably) well-written native language.

[kazinator]

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

But that creates a private version of the text which the original poster didn't sign off on. You could have fixed something contrary to their intent.

[tempestn]

There's a big difference between me running a filter on other people's words, and those people themselves choosing to run one and then approving the results.

I personally don't see a problem with someone using a grammar checker as long as they aren't just blindly accepting its suggestions. That said, if someone actually is using it in that way, it shouldn't be detectable anyway, so it probably doesn't matter all that much whether or not it's included in the letter of the rule.