But if you used AI to (1) write clarifying analogies (suppose your “ghostwriting half of my comments and posts here” example was the sort of example an AI could help surface), or (2) develop your opinions beyond what you previously held, I’m not sure a reader would get too annoyed!
Right, but neither of those cases necessitate using the AI’s writing, which is the crucial distinction.
If I notice the writing is by AI, I don’t know to what extent the purported author is using it to do their thinking for them. Maybe it’s totally innocuous, like a non-native English speaker using it for translation. But it might also just be something lazily copied and pasted, not something they even read carefully. It scales much better for the lazy writers than the earnest writers.
Another thing is that it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking the AI is just writing your own thoughts for you, but which turns out to be an illusion (I speak from experience).
Right, but neither of those cases necessitate using the AI’s writing, which is the crucial distinction.
If I notice the writing is by AI, I don’t know to what extent the purported author is using it to do their thinking for them. Maybe it’s totally innocuous, like a non-native English speaker using it for translation. But it might also just be something lazily copied and pasted, not something they even read carefully. It scales much better for the lazy writers than the earnest writers.
Another thing is that it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking the AI is just writing your own thoughts for you, but which turns out to be an illusion (I speak from experience).