[thutch76]

This is not weaponizing to a single disabled person. I am not disabled, but I have always had difficulty expressing myself effectively, and that difficulty has increased as I've aged. I use AI to help organize my thoughts, to help give voice to that little tidbit of an idea that is trying to escape, and it has been a genuine help. Asking me to not use that assistance is similar to asking a user to not use accessibility features. It's an asinine policy and is an overcorrection.

[ljm]

Is this not the difference between using AI as an aid to organise yourself, as opposed to using AI as a total replacement for your thoughts or your writing and therefore removing the personal touch?

The bone of contention is that the signal:noise ratio on GPT's output is super low and there is no way to tell the difference between a thoughtful GPT post and slop, and given how easy it is to post at volume with low-effort AI posts, there is a bias towards caution rather than acceptance.

At best it's a case-by-case affordance to use AI as opposed to a blanket rule.

[wittjeff]

> as opposed to using AI as a total replacement for your thoughts or your writing and therefore removing the personal touch?

I'm really having trouble grasping the true breadth of this problem in the wild. How much of it am I not seeing because the mods filter it out first? How much is faulty signal detection from readers?