What I read is that you're self-conscious about your writing style and that you find the LLM processed version of your own stream of thoughts to be helpful to you yourself.

Which is fine for you, but doesn't change that many people can get more insight out of your original text than they can out of the generated adaptation, and can do so with more interest and less fatigue.

And indeed, you don't have to care about that. But one would think that in publishing or sharing your writing at all, you do in fact have some investment in whether people receive those insights that you have. Otherwise, you could just keep the AI writings to yourself in the first place.

Many different people in this HN submission have given you similar feedback: given that, you should consider that your priors are not correct.

No, I did read it, and I think I understood it. My summary in my own words is that you find that LLMs can massage your writing and reduce the stress of communication. Did I believe it? Well...

You have an account on HN dating back to 2013 with over 6000 comment karma, you clearly didn't have trouble communicating like a normal person for a decade on this website before the advent of LLMs. Your spelling and grammar in posts predating LLMs are also far better than what you've produced in this prompt, so I'm tempted to think that you're exaggerating your inability to communicate normally to make a point.

But even so, the original wall of text communicates the point much more strongly and sincerely than the LLM trash.

Add some paragraphs and yes; your style is more "interesting than what an LLM generated. That's the only think truly hard to read compared to the output.

Your style reveals the way you write sentences, the language and vocabulary you choose to employ, and even your emotion.

Here's an obvious example:

> I dont care ion people dont read my stuff. There are people that do and they find it useful. My ideas solidified have already started to bring dividends for me - and not from others reading beut from me being able to ficus my thoughts.

which converts into

>I don't particularly mind if people skip my stuff. Some people do read it and find it useful. And honestly, the biggest dividends haven't come from readers at all — they've come from the act of solidifying my own thoughts. That alone has been worth it.

spelling aside, just look at the first sentence. You show a different kind of derision for your audience here compared to the LLM trying to sugar coat it and soften the blow. That's style, and a small part of why AI feels like it "slops" up any given style.

"Brings dividends" isn't grammatically correct but reveals how your mind sees the idea. you see it as a result to manifest from your ideas. The Ai interpretation of "The biggest dividends..." grinds out the edges back to a more passive action happening more as a side goal.

There's that much subtle changes in meaning from a 50 word passage being converted. Which AI should be "good" at. Now imagine how this breaks down slowly over the 600 word post you made if I broke down every little bit of it. That's what people are doing internally and quickly concluding "this all sounds the same". Which is about the worst thing you can be in an attention economy; boring and unoriginal.

----

P.S. Yes. I don't want to come off as rude. But your prompt also does reveal how you approach writing as a whole. It's clear you a) value the presentation of the writing as much, if not more, than the contents of the writing and b) admire the writing "sounding smart and proper" but do not wish to impart effort to achieve those means yourself.

I do believe there can be interesting prompts to read that is a back and forth correcting and managing the AI to give a more tailored writing as an end result. A conversation that reveals how you go past the basics spelling and grammar and tell the AI how to inject your style and taste into the generated results. That would be true "AI-assisted writing".

This was clearly not that. This was a single prompt: "make me an essay that sounds good and is formatted well". One and done. Not a conversation, but a demand trusting the standard of the average as output.

I won't reject the idea of AI-driven writing one day making bespoke works. But I highly doubt it will be a one-and-done prompt that achieves this.