There’s something about reading AI-generated writing that’s a big turn-off for me. I don’t think it’s necessarily the style. Rather, I think it’s a lack of human connection that you get when reading something a real person wrote, especially if it’s someone you know or respect. This feeling reminds me of the difference between in-person vs. video meetings. As we started coming back to the office from COVID, I noticed the significant difference in human connection when I met with people in-person rather than over calls. In some cases, it transformed our working relationship. I wonder if there’s a similar connection that happens in written communication. That said, using AI is important for improving productivity, so it doesn’t make sense to dismiss it. It will be interesting to explore how we can continue to use AI for writing while still maintaining our distinct human voice, which is important for connection. Curious to know if others have thoughts on this.
Totally agree, AI is a great tool for efficiency, but real connection still comes from the human typing on the keyboard behind the words. The real sweet spot is using AI as a tool, the way we do at Prospero, to boost clarity and efficiency while still keeping the human connection and creativity at the core of every discussion.
Ted Chiang wrote a great article in the New Yorker a while back regarding AI not creating art because its the CHOICES that are captured in great writing that really attract us to it. For me, its the "low-effort" part that really puts me off. Literally makes my eyes glaze. What I've been looking at is getting a sense of the portion of the distribution (essentially relative perplexity) that a piece of text comes from. Also, going out of my way to ask for multiple version from the entirety of the distribution - then picking the one that both makes sense and isn't center distribution bland. And yea, not trying to create art... but to communicate.
The real question Chris is whether using AI to express your own thoughts actually makes the message less authentic. If AI is inventing the opinion for you, sure, that feels hollow and disingenuous. That’s where the “lack of human connection” shows up. But when the ideas, experiences, and emotions are yours, and AI simply helps refine the wording, is it really any different from having an editor, a coach, or even just taking extra time to polish your writing? To me, authenticity comes from where the thoughts originate, not from whether a tool helped shape the final phrasing. AI shouldn’t replace our voice, it should amplify it.
The connection comes from structure, not authorship. People respond to coherence because coherence carries intent. Most AI-generated writing fails not because it’s artificial, but because it’s unaligned — it has no internal necessity behind the words. A human voice works when the reasoning is anchored. The moment the structure is clear, the origin matters far less. The real challenge isn’t AI vs human. It’s signal vs drift. If the writing carries a stable internal geometry, people feel the connection either way.
You’ve hit on something that most people aren’t talking about, Chris, which is the lack of connection. There’s always supposed be a human on the other side of the ink and we can feel it when there’s not. I agree, very similar feeling. It’s not good for the spirit. And one thing I’ve noticed is that there’s an air of suspicion clouding every online interaction. People are tense. Combative. Something’s gotta give… As for me, I’m going to continue pushing for human writing. Blogs, posts, ads, comments. It’s gotta be human or else there’s no real connection. Thanks for putting this idea out there!
We always assume an even playing field. There are many who have felt they have no voice on platforms that favour the written word. They could be dyslexic, vision impaired, or otherwise just struggle to maintain the focus to get their thoughts organised on "paper". AI helps to be a leveller in that regard. If someone uses a ghost writer or has a biography written about them, we don't put it down to laziness. I understand your point about connection, but if it's the difference of hearing the thoughts of another through an LLMs phrasing, or not hearing it at all, I'll always choose the former.
I have a similar response to reading AI-generated articles / blog posts. My take is that, if I wanted to AI-generated content, I would just prompt an LLM myself and have it conform to my preferences instead of reading a fixed AI response with no interactivity. More generally, like in code, I think it's a bad idea to use LLMs to write large portions of text: the narrative thread becomes weak, and the human connection gets lost. However, I think that using it to edit difficult sections is a great idea.
This is probably just generational teething. Our grandparents preferred handwritten letters to Arial text as well. People are generally very good at reading nuance and personality in even the most mundane medium, we just haven’t yet learned to “hear” the human behind AI‑assisted writing. Right now everything has a bit of an overt Simlish accent, if I can put it that way. In time though, people will start to play with it. Adding wit and quirk in unexpected ways. For what it’s worth, I never liked bland corporate speak even before AI came along. Ultimately for me, an engaging person is still engaging, regardless of the forum, and the reverse is also true. Being in person just gives you more senses to work with when building connection, instead of relying only on sight and audio. That said I do miss simple phone calls. I’m a much better listener when I don’t have to look at anything haha. P.S written with ChatGPT ;)
Content in general is suffering, and it's unfortunate because I really do enjoy writing, and sharing ideas. It shaped my entire career. I think the biggest weirdest part is the "slight" you feel when you make it past the first paragraph and you ask yourself... "Is this just AI written?" It almost feels like betrayal, because you know the rest will not have much substance. Yes you can match tone, and you can use it as a researcher and thought partner, but I think folks are getting wildly lazy with it.