I have my reservations about AI but it's hard not to notice that LLMs are effectively a Gutenberg level event in the history of written communication. They mark a fundamental shift in our capacity to produce persuasive text.

The ability to speak the same language or understand cultural norms are no longer barriers to publishing pretty much anything. You don't have to understand a topic or the jargon of any given domain. You don't have to learn the expected style or conventions an author might normally use in that context. You just have to know how to write a good prompt.

There's bound to be a significant increase in the quantity as well as the quality of untrustworthy published text because of these new capacities to produce it. It's not the phenomenon but the scale of production that changes the game here.

> marketing fluff for the App Store

If it’s fluff, why do you put it there? As an App Store user, I‘m not interested in reading marketing fluff.

Because it’s required?

I’ve released over 20 apps, over the years, and have learned to add some basic stuff to each app.

Truth be told, it was really sort of a self-deprecating joke.

I’m not a marketer, so I don’t have the training to write the kind of stuff users expect on the Store, and could use all the help I can get

Over the years, I’ve learned that owning my limitations, can be even more important, than knowing my strengths.

My point was that as a user I expect substance, not fluff. Some app descriptions actually provide that, but many don’t.

Well, you can always check out my stuff, and see what you think. Easy to find.

When I wrote about trust, I see that I made a mistake: most people seem to have understood it as being in regard to fake things. I just meant trust as in, it’s not AI-generated.

Your comment about the fluff is exactly what I mean. I read some fluff that is AI-generated and some kind of disgust happens in my stomach, and I wish there was nothing written there at all. I just feel like it’s be best to not read anything than read something that’s AI-generated… it’s almost like the author is trying to trick me with a fake version of reality. I wonder if there’s such a thing as the uncanny valley for text?

Well, I apologize for using the word “fluff.” That was a mistake.

As a lifelong engineer, I “grew up” with a somewhat antagonistic relationship with Marketing, so became used to disparaging their work, even if I had to change hats, myself, and act in a Marketing capacity.

I should have probably used the word “copy,” instead.

But you have a good point.

I think that one “legitimate” use for AI-generated text, will be for non-native speakers of a language, using it to correct their vocabulary.

For things like patents and papers, this is probably a good thing. AI can generate clear, concise vernacular. I often specify the reading level, in my prompts (usually tenth grade), so that the prose is accessible.

For things like presentation proposals; not so much. You may get a proposal that reads like it was written by an English professor, and the actual presentation is barely comprehensible.