I'm not disagreeing with this post (or, in any event, not in the comment to which you replied). I am noting that most of the discussion that I have seen has been pretty against AI-generated writing writ large, conflating the good use of it with the bad use. I am noting my opinion that there is a lot of value in this usage. When I am saying "most of the discussion", I am not talking about this post specifically, but the broader discussion there has been about the use of AI to generate writings.

• [requires disclosure] A user has an idea for a forum post, then co-writes it with an LLM, turning a verbal mind-dump into bullet points, into an essay, into bullets again, etc… It turns out good.

I think this category, back and forth idea and drafting iteration between human and AI(s), has an enormous amount of value. The chatbots are very good at both generalizing from pithy insights and organizing material pretty effectively. Discussion and feedback over several rounds, at least for me, can produce content that well conveys my ideas much more quickly than if I were to just do it myself.

I think it is unfortunate that most of the discussion seems to be about demonizing the use of all AI for writing-generation, rather than distinguishing the good for the bad, and encouraging its positive use to enable contributions that otherwise just would not have happened.

Regarding the social multiplier, financial effect on vegan products, and boosting the social credibility of animal welfare, it seems like you are making the case that "offsetting" should take the full counterfactual difference between being an omnivore and a vegan, which includes the positive effects of being a vegan as well as the avoidance of the negative effects of being an omnivore. I would be interested in seeing attempts at calculating the value of these positive effects, attempted to be cashed out in terms of funding for farmed animal charities.

If AGI goes well for humans, this will likely mean a lot of technological development. This would likely include technologies allowing for products equal to or superior on the dimensions humans like, that don't have the animal welfare entailments. I realize that there have been some arguments that people would still prefer products created through suffering even if alternatives could be just as cheap, satisfying, and convenient, but I think that attitudes would change in the medium to long-term if those conditions were met.

Are the services available to founders (or other EAs that might be interested) for a fee?

The ambiguity in this regard may give the impression that there is more hostility toward people using AI to draft things than there actually is.

There's some ambiguity as to whether this is a personal preference question (I.e., I would never post something drafted by an AI, but don't have a problem if you do) or a normative question (I. E., I would never post something drafted by an AI and neither should you. 

I would definitely want a human reviewing and possibly iterating, but if that is happening and the AI is drafting, that's fine. 

I think the problem is fundamentally the lack of care and attention to the content being created, not whether or not AI is used. If it is in people's incentives to produce polished, thoughtless, drivel on LinkedIn and they can do it in 10 seconds, they will. 

This is very different from an iterative process in which the human is carefully examining the output and refining to optimize the exploration and explanation of an idea. 

I have experience writing things with and without AI. At least for me, it can be a very difficult process trying to convey things as clearly and effectively as I can. Perhaps I am being unreasonable in putting that much time into the process and perhaps other people are just much better at writing clearly and effectively without AI. But I can say that I would not produce a lot of the content that I produce without AI being able to shorten the process significantly.