On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 02:52:23PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2026-08-21 at 14:43, Jean-Christophe wrote: > > > Here is a respectful and articulate response in English: > > Especially given the inclusion of that line, this reads very strongly as > if it were written by a LLM, AKA "generative AI". > > Given that the message you're responding to explicitly includes the > statement > > >> I am not interested in conversing with machines > > , it seems clear to me that sending a response which was generated by > such a machine is by definition not respectful.
My feeling too, thanks. > You might still have a valid argument to justify using it in such a > case; that's a separate question. But labeling it as "respectful" while > disrespecting the expressed preferences of the one you're claiming to > respect seems problematic, to me. This is actually an example of how that "generative AI" [1] creeps in. You use it as a tool and then "it" takes over more and more. I'd prefer a thousand times reading Jean Christope "as he talks", with a personal style, errors and all, than wading through that insipid porridge "it" has made of him. Cheers [1] Naming the thing is already tough: it's not the LLM (that's just the model, one interchangeable piece of the thing -- for images you'd use something different), it's the whole contraption of a model used "generatively" (a random generator is also a part of it). -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
