To follow the pattern of your comment: You are missing the forest for the trees. Like many things, the difference between theory and practice matters here. In theory the only thing that matters is the idea. In practice the context and human element matters AND a culture of ai text could very much reduce the bar for quality.

An equivalent overly-pure reductive mistake is "why do you need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong".

I feel that way about business-logic code. If it works, and it's efficient, I couldn't care less if an AI wrote it.

There is no scenario in which I want to receive life advice from a device inherently incapable of having experienced life. I don't want to receive comfort from something that cannot have experienced suffering. I don't want a wry observation from something that can be neither wry nor observant. It just doesn't interest me at all.

Now, if we ever get genuine AGI that we collectively decide has a meaningful conscious mind, yes, by all means, I want to hear their view of the world. Short of that, nah. It's like getting marriage advice from a dog. Even if it could... do you actually want it?

If that is the case, you could consider a different website like chatgpt.com which will give you much more immediate feedback on your ideas.