Allow me to get to know you, mistakes and all

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Frustration with AI-Generated Workplace Communication

  • Many dislike obviously-LLM-written Slack, email, GitHub issues, and PR descriptions; long, polished paragraphs are now often a negative quality signal.
  • Complaints focus on verbosity, buzzword padding, low “signal-to-token” ratio, and the sense of reading hollow “AI slop.”
  • Using AI for critical 1:1 feedback (e.g., performance reviews) is seen as especially jarring and dehumanizing.

Authenticity, “Voice,” and Social Expectations

  • One side: AI-polished text robs others of seeing real quirks, mistakes, and thought patterns; it flattens personality and makes everyone sound the same.
  • Counterpoint: No one is entitled to another’s “authentic self”; people routinely curate their public face, and using tools (books, coaches, LLMs) is just another form of that.
  • Disagreement over whether colleagues have a legitimate interest in your “real voice” or only in clear, functional communication.

Efficiency, Risk Management, and Asymmetry of Effort

  • Some workplaces discourage ChatGPT/Claude for internal comms as unproductive and alienating; basic spell/grammar tools are accepted.
  • Others rely heavily on LLMs to handle large volumes of repetitive questions, drafts, and documentation, claiming big productivity gains.
  • Several note an effort asymmetry: “I couldn’t be bothered to write it, but you have to read it,” which is perceived as disrespectful.

Non-Native Speakers, Disabilities, and Accessibility

  • Non-native English speakers and some disabled contributors say LLMs are a crucial equalizer for clarity and credibility.
  • Others respond that minor grammatical errors are fine; sloppiness is the problem, not imperfect English.
  • Some fear polished AI text is now less trusted than imperfect but clearly human language.

AI as Writing Tool vs Thinking Tool

  • Distinction drawn between:
    • AI as output tool: generating or heavily rewriting messages, which often erases personal style.
    • AI as thinking tool: rubber-ducking, structuring ideas, overcoming blank-page anxiety, then writing/editing in one’s own words.
  • ADHD and “blank page” users describe AI as a powerful starter, but others warn this may atrophy core planning and drafting skills.

Language Flattening and Cultural Effects

  • Multiple comments describe AI as a “smoothing function” or “genericizer” that homogenizes style and vocabulary.
  • Some claim early evidence that mainstream language is shifting toward AI patterns (e.g., more em dashes, certain stock phrases).
  • Fears that pervasive AI-written text will reshape human writing norms, making everything more generic—while also pushing some people to become more idiosyncratic to stand out.

Norms, Labels, and Future Use

  • Proposals include standardized “human-only” labels for content and clearer norms about when AI use is acceptable (e.g., grammar vs full generation).
  • Others argue it’s too early to draw hard lines; society is still experimenting, and future uses (personal PR, automated coordination, richer relationships) are uncertain.