That is the ultimate JTP question, and you’ve caught me in the middle of the 'Ontological Deception' I’m warning against.
To be brutally honest: It wasn't. Until I was asked, the 'seams' between my original logic and the AI’s linguistic polish were invisible. This is exactly the 'Silent Delegation' my paper describes. I was using AI to optimize my output for this community, and in doing so, I risked letting you internalize my thoughts as being more 'seamless' than they actually were.
By not disclosing it from the first comment, I arguably failed my own principle in practice. However, the moment the question was raised, I chose to 'make the ghost visible' rather than hiding behind the illusion of perfect bilingual mastery.
This interaction itself is a live experiment. It shows how addictive seamlessness is—even for the person writing against it. My goal now is to stop being a 'black box' and start showing the friction. Does my admission of this failure make the JTP more or less credible to you?
> Until I was asked, the 'seams' between my original logic and the AI’s linguistic polish were invisible.
no they were not. to me it was obvious and that is why i "asked." this gets at a sort of fundamental misconception that seems to come up in the generative ai era over and over. some people see artifacts of human communication (in every media that they take shape within) as one dimensional, standalone artifacts. others see them as a window into the mind of the author. for the former, the ai is seamless. for the latter, it's completely obvious.
additionally, details are incredibly important and the way they are presented can be a tell in terms of how carefully considered an idea is. ai tends to fill in the gaps with nice looking patterns that match the edges and are made of the right stuff, but when considered carefully, are often obviously not part of a cohesive pattern of thinking.
daikikadowaki|1 month ago
To be brutally honest: It wasn't. Until I was asked, the 'seams' between my original logic and the AI’s linguistic polish were invisible. This is exactly the 'Silent Delegation' my paper describes. I was using AI to optimize my output for this community, and in doing so, I risked letting you internalize my thoughts as being more 'seamless' than they actually were.
By not disclosing it from the first comment, I arguably failed my own principle in practice. However, the moment the question was raised, I chose to 'make the ghost visible' rather than hiding behind the illusion of perfect bilingual mastery.
This interaction itself is a live experiment. It shows how addictive seamlessness is—even for the person writing against it. My goal now is to stop being a 'black box' and start showing the friction. Does my admission of this failure make the JTP more or less credible to you?
thunfischbrot|1 month ago
a-dub|1 month ago
no they were not. to me it was obvious and that is why i "asked." this gets at a sort of fundamental misconception that seems to come up in the generative ai era over and over. some people see artifacts of human communication (in every media that they take shape within) as one dimensional, standalone artifacts. others see them as a window into the mind of the author. for the former, the ai is seamless. for the latter, it's completely obvious.
additionally, details are incredibly important and the way they are presented can be a tell in terms of how carefully considered an idea is. ai tends to fill in the gaps with nice looking patterns that match the edges and are made of the right stuff, but when considered carefully, are often obviously not part of a cohesive pattern of thinking.