Does AI Clean-Up Taint the Message? My Take on Authenticity in the Digital Age

In the fast-paced world of social media, where instant reactions often dictate engagement, I've found myself leaning on a new tool to navigate heated discussions: Artificial Intelligence. And to be frank, it's not always met with open arms.

Let's cut to the chase: I'm talking about using AI to tame my responses, especially when my initial, unvarnished thoughts are, shall we say, a tad too colorful for public consumption. When frustration boils over, expletives may well flow freely in my mind. However, this isn't the public face I wish to display, nor the tone I believe fosters productive dialogue. So, my personal solution? I'll use AI to craft a more measured, less toxic response.

Taming the Tongue with Tech

For me, it's about self-preservation and effective communication. As I recently experienced in a social media exchange, some subjects – and indeed, some people – can be incredibly annoying. My gut reaction might be to respond in kind, but that's a surefire way to escalate conflict and potentially alienate followers. AI becomes my filter, transforming a vitriolic internal monologue into a polite, professional, and palatable message.

For example, I was recently engaged in what I thought was a constructive dialogue with someone whose normal communication style included frequent cursing. I didn't want to descend to that level. Instead, I used AI to rephrase my thoughts, maintaining my core argument but stripping away any negativity or expletives. It feels safer this way, and less likely to lose a social media follower or a potential ally in a discussion.

The Content is Still King (and Human)

Now, here's where the accusations often fly: "You just let AI do it all!" This couldn't be further from the truth, especially when it comes to creating original content. When I write articles or longer pieces, the core content is all me. I might use AI as a collaborator – to collate and organize my initial thoughts, to brainstorm, or even to generate a very rough first draft. But every single word that makes it into the final publication has been reviewed, rewritten, and reshaped by my own hand. I am, frankly, never satisfied with AI's raw output; the flow always needs a human touch, a fix to make it truly mine.

The frustration arises when people dismiss my entire message, or even refuse to read it, simply because they suspect AI involvement in the delivery of a response. As happened recently, despite the message being unequivocally my own – just sans expletives – the individual used the perceived AI input as an excuse not to engage with my points.

The AI Paradox: Why Does the Medium Matter More Than the Message?

This brings me to my central question: Why does it even matter if AI was used to refine a message, especially when the core message remains authentic to the human author?

The purpose of communication, particularly in a debate, is to convey information, express an opinion, or build an argument. If AI helps an individual present their ideas more clearly, concisely, and respectfully, isn't that a net positive?

Consider the parallels:

• Proofreading and Editing: For centuries, writers have relied on editors and proofreaders to refine their work, correct grammar, improve flow, and ensure clarity. Is AI doing anything fundamentally different when it helps me polish my sentences? In fact, academic institutions and publishers are increasingly developing policies for AI use in writing, often distinguishing between AI as a tool for drafting/editing and AI as the sole author (e.g., Purdue OWL on AI and Writing).
• Speech Coaches and Public Speaking: Public figures often work with coaches to refine their delivery, tone, and word choice to be more persuasive and less inflammatory. This is about shaping the message for impact, not fabricating it.

My use of AI to clean up curse words or soften a tone is analogous to these long-accepted practices. The sentiment, the argument, the underlying "me" is still present. It's just presented in a package less likely to trigger defensive reactions and more likely to be heard.

To further illustrate my point, I even took the article that was the subject of the aforementioned social media debate and pasted the entire text into an AI tool, asking it to analyze whether it was human-written or AI-generated. The result? "Strong indications that it was written by a human." I forwarded this to the person I was arguing with, hoping it would validate my claim to authorship.

In my humble opinion, the use of AI means nothing when the message is entirely yours. Even in casual social media responses, if the core message and intent are unchanged, but AI has merely removed the rough edges, what difference does it make?

Perhaps it's time we re-evaluate our biases against AI as a collaborative tool. True authenticity lies not in the absence of technological assistance, but in the unwavering presence of genuine human thought and intention behind the words.