I think there's a difference between using an LLM as an editor and asking the LLM to write something for you. The output in the former I find to still have a far clearer tonal fingerprint than the latter.

And whose to say your idiosyncratic expressions wouldn't find an audience as it changes over time? Just you saying that makes me curious to read something you wrote.

Transformation seems reasonable for that purpose. And if we were friends, I'd rather read your idiosyncratic raw output.

At some point, generation breaks a social contract that I'm using my energy and attention consuming something that another human spent their energy and attention creating.

In that case I'd rather read the prompt the human brain wrote, or if I have to consume it, have an LLM consolidate it for me.

I would be interested to see an example of a before and after on this. I do think LLMs as editors and rewriters can be useful sometimes, but I usually only ever see them used as a means to puff out an idea into longer prose which is really mostly counterproductive.

I should probably do that too. I once wrote an email that to me was just filled with impersonal information. The receiver was somebody I did not personally know. I later learned I made that person cry. Which I obviously did not intend. I did not swear or call anyone names. I basically described what I believe they did, what is wrong about that and what they should do instead.

Here's my guess- your post reflects your honest opinion on the matter, with some LLM help. It elaborated on your smartphone analogy, and may have tightened up the text overall.

LLMs have now robbed you of the opportunity to make your communication clearer

I don't see signs of LLM writing in your comment so I'll have to guess no.

If you didn't intentionally try and trick us, then yes, you used an LLM.

Please share what you told the LLM! I can't be the only curious one.

You didn't, but you've learned.