I don't think I agree with Tressie MC here: "The history of technology says that these things have a hype cycle: They promise; we fear; they catch hold; they under-deliver. We right-size them. We get back to the business of being human, which is machine-proof." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/opinion/chatgpt-writing-ai.html #ChatGPT I don't think it's a static cycle, and I don't think we're machine-proof.

She says: "But even when the essays are a good synthesis of other essays, written by humans, they are not human. Frankly, they creep me out precisely because they are so competent and yet so very empty. ...There is a voice, but it is mechanical. It does not incite, offend or seduce. That’s because real voice is more than grammatical patternmaking." Lots of uninspired, or unskilled, human writing is just like this.

Or highly skilled. She also says of a soulless Xmas song remake: "The song was musically sound, as far as I could tell. The notes were all in the right places. But it had been filtered in the way that mechanical Muzak covers transform actual songs into mere sounds: technical holiday music." But Muzak was not "mechanical," it was written and performed by humans trying to suppress their individuality.