[NateEag]

I agree that it was a rude, tasteless metaphor.

Alas, for rude, tasteless behavior, such as replacing your own authentic self-expression with the mellifluous spew of verbal diarrhea that bullshit machines slather across all surfaces they touch, rude, tasteless metaphors are the only fitting ones.

[altcognito]

If only everyones authentic self-expression were so important to hear, to say nothing of unique and inciteful.

I'm not against authentic self-expression, but this is more about being wrapped up in ones own self-importance.

[NateEag]

The only way people will get to self-expression that's worth hearing is by working their way through the self-expression that wasn't.

In a better world that would happen in school and as a normal part of growing up, but at least in the US, that mostly doesn't happen.

If humans use LLMs to write, it's much more likely they will never uncover the unique perspectives they could share with the world.

So, for those whose parents and teachers failed them, embracing, encouraging, and engaging their clumsy, self-centered rudeness is, I think, the best path forward.

Granted, when it is clumsy, self-centered, and rude, one of the more helpful things we can do is offer the critiques that clearly and coherently point that out, as you've done here.

...though I stand by my claim that using LLMs to write is actually deeply offensive and rude, a rejection of what it means to be human, and that it should be met with strong rejections.

[altcognito]

We also probably need to lower our standards somewhat, if not for the only reason to allow ourselves to grow.

One of the best and worst things to ever happen to self-expression was the internet. While it exposes us to so many new ways of thinking, it can also be repressive in so many ways, not to mentions limits many of us from engaging with those in the immediate area. Also it holds onto our worst outputs forever!

You might see why I really like the point about embracing imperfect communication and expression for so many reasons.

I think it's fine to strongly reject non-human communication for certain (maybe even many purposes), but there are a lot of "production" type situations (boilerplate code, CRUD systems) that don't require a human grinding away at it, and humanity benefits from using it's time more wisely. Defining what is "intellectual" work versus this "repetitive" work is kinda tough, and it is probably different for everyone. There is a certain amount of grinding necessary, and some move through it faster than others.

In any case, thanks for the response.