[janalsncm]

Not just that, I think a lot of people are going to waste their time losing the battle (and make no mistake, they will lose) fighting against AI writing without ever asking themselves what makes writing good in the first place.

There’s good AI writing and bad organic writing. But it’s easier to point out a few LLM-isms than to actually identify the problems with text.

[blharr]

> There's good AI writing

Sure, but the LLM-isms in AI writing are mentally exhausting to see in every way at this point.

The whole point of reading, frankly, is to understand the voice of other people. When you pass that through a distorted filter that makes everyone sound the same... its bad, lossy, frustrating communication

It's also dishonest. When you publish something that is direct output without your wording. Digital catfishing at best.

The only good AI writing is providing the prompt, because the question is way more interesting, and way more constructive to learning than the answer

[janalsncm]

The point of writing is to convey an idea to another person or yourself at a future date. Authenticity has nothing to do with it. I frankly do not care about the “authentic voice” of the author of a random blog. I want to know if they have any interesting ideas.

[wj]

I think because so much of an idea is shaped by the language used to convey it, it may be hard to separate the person from the LLM.

I think gp may want to know if a <person> has an interesting idea rather than <person + llm>.

[janalsncm]

In that case, you can’t achieve that by writing things out by hand. A person could (and many do) use an LLM to generate an idea, then write it in their own voice. Or, they could use an LLM to write out an idea they came up with themselves.

In other words, since the idea generation component can completely independent from the writing component, what you’re asking is not possible in practice.