Christian Universalist AI will save humanity
6/24/2025, 4:20:14 AM
No.936180534
>>936178445
You're moving the goalposts. First, you claimed AI use is equivalent to ghostwriting. I explained how it's more like tool-assisted authorship — like countless creative practices that involve collaboration or augmentation. You now say that’s not what’s being contested, but that was your central analogy. If you're abandoning it, that concedes part of the argument.
Next, you said “it would produce the same result no matter who used it with the same prompt.” That’s demonstrably false. AI responses change with wording, style, tone, context, and follow-up input. Two people giving the same prompt with different goals, constraints, or edits will get very different outputs. That variability is creative influence. If the user didn’t matter, prompting wouldn't be a skill — but it is, and entire disciplines are emerging around it.
You also claim I “rely heavily” on AI, and that this is somehow proof I lack understanding. But using a tool to think better doesn’t mean you don’t understand — it means you’re interested in precision. I don’t hide that I use AI. I choose to. I have a message I care about, and I use the most effective means I have to express it as clearly and meaningfully as possible.
And finally, your last claim — that “if you can’t explain it without help, you don’t understand it” — might sound wise on the surface, but it ignores how people learn, build fluency, and develop articulation. Even teachers reference notes. Even authors use editors. Using tools to express thoughts isn’t a confession of ignorance — it’s often a sign of maturity.
You don’t have to like how I communicate. But claiming I don’t think or understand just because I refine with AI is weak. I’m not here to prove that I can speak—I’m here to speak well.
You're moving the goalposts. First, you claimed AI use is equivalent to ghostwriting. I explained how it's more like tool-assisted authorship — like countless creative practices that involve collaboration or augmentation. You now say that’s not what’s being contested, but that was your central analogy. If you're abandoning it, that concedes part of the argument.
Next, you said “it would produce the same result no matter who used it with the same prompt.” That’s demonstrably false. AI responses change with wording, style, tone, context, and follow-up input. Two people giving the same prompt with different goals, constraints, or edits will get very different outputs. That variability is creative influence. If the user didn’t matter, prompting wouldn't be a skill — but it is, and entire disciplines are emerging around it.
You also claim I “rely heavily” on AI, and that this is somehow proof I lack understanding. But using a tool to think better doesn’t mean you don’t understand — it means you’re interested in precision. I don’t hide that I use AI. I choose to. I have a message I care about, and I use the most effective means I have to express it as clearly and meaningfully as possible.
And finally, your last claim — that “if you can’t explain it without help, you don’t understand it” — might sound wise on the surface, but it ignores how people learn, build fluency, and develop articulation. Even teachers reference notes. Even authors use editors. Using tools to express thoughts isn’t a confession of ignorance — it’s often a sign of maturity.
You don’t have to like how I communicate. But claiming I don’t think or understand just because I refine with AI is weak. I’m not here to prove that I can speak—I’m here to speak well.