While I endorse the message of TFA (though do find the framing a bit on the overly blunt side), I believe it's unfair to reduce to "losing the person". The person is still willing to engage with you and still had to use their human words to prompt the AI. The latent space they exposed within the model is still uniquely the result of their words and effort.

We're just missing the establishment of a decorum of, "even if you do feel like you need to prompt the AI before responding, and even if you like the response, you still need to paraphrase and synthesize to avoid coming off rude and inhuman."

> At that point, is the person still even a person? He's nothing more but a meat RPA, copy pasting responses.

You can say nearly the same of someone obsessed with social media and brain-rot. If you don't actively resist, soon your world view becomes the algorithm that you are being fed.

Very few people are able to resist this.

Suppose they simply directly quoted Wikipedia or some other expert authority, with attribution, rather than AI. Would you say the same thing? The person isn't giving you the uniqueness of their brain's weights and biases when they do that, either. That doesn't make the response any less helpful or appropriate in the situation.

People quote other sources sometimes. That's entirely OK. In fact, sometimes it's completely appropriate. We have to get used to the idea that sometimes, that source will be AI, and pretty soon (if not already) it will be just as authoritative and correct as Wikipedia or any other expert the person might quote.

If you don't like it, instead of responding by sending them a link to an aggressive, insulting, disrespectful and frankly low emotional IQ site like this, you can just say, "OK, thanks, that's great, but what's your opinion? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you think." Unfortunately, if you send a link to this site, you are more than likely to lose the person entirely from the conversation anyway.