AI may be making us think and write more alike

Workplace Communication and Authenticity

• Many describe managers and leads who communicate almost exclusively via LLM outputs (emails, reviews, tickets, plans).
• This feels dehumanizing and “proxy-like”: harder to gauge intent, negotiate, or push back, because the real person is not reasoning.
• Some are job-hunting specifically to escape AI-mediated bosses, but expect this pattern to be widespread.
• LLM use is said to bloat slide decks and specs with slick but noisy, redundant content, adding overhead for those doing the real work.
• Others distinguish acceptable uses (grammar/tone checks, idea validation) from full delegation of writing, which they see as crossing a line.

Cognitive and Cultural Effects

• Multiple comments report people unconsciously mimicking LLM phrases and tone (“you’re absolutely right”, “I hallucinated that”).
• Concern: offloading “stuck” thinking to LLMs may atrophy problem‑solving and originality; some fear “LLM-brain” or mild psychosis‑like detachment.
• Others argue human communication is highly resilient and novelty‑driven; they predict LLM‑speak will eventually become unfashionable, like past fads.

Creativity, Secrecy, and a New “Dark Age”

• A long, widely discussed comment envisions a “second dark age”: people hide techniques from LLM training, open communities shrink, and trusted human‑only circles rise.
• Some are already withholding code, art, and patterns they would once have open‑sourced, believing training “dilutes” their advantage.
• Debate: one side sees this as selfish or “dog in the manger”; the other claims LLM benefits are net‑negative so far (spam, slop, surveillance, skill loss).

Education, Skills, and Productivity

• Teachers and mentors report that student essays and junior code now look same-y, making it harder to assess actual understanding.
• Others note that to use LLMs safely you must finally do long‑neglected work: detailed specs, tests, docs. This may cancel much of the supposed productivity gain.

Average‑ness, Safety, and Homogenization

• Many emphasize that LLMs, by design, gravitate toward the “average” and then are further tuned for inoffensive, corporate‑bland safety.
• Some like the precise vocabulary and clear grammar they pick up from LLMs; others see the tone as neutered and impersonal.
• There is disagreement over whether this convergence is just another wave of normalization (like printing presses and standardized spelling) or a qualitatively worse flattening of thought.