by adamzwasserman | 2025-11-28 17:32:30+00:00
here is the entire exchange. you decide:

Me: I want to reply to this HN article:

We're Losing Our Voice to LLMs Social media has become a reminder of something precious we are losing in the age of LLMs: unique voices. Over time, it has become obvious just how many posts are being generated by an LLM. The tell is the voice. Every post sounds like it was posted by the same social media manager. If you rely on an LLM to write all your posts, you are making a mistake. Your voice is an asset. Not just what you want to say, but how you say it. Your voice is unique. It is formed from your lifetime of lived experiences. No one's voice will be exactly like yours. Your voice becomes recognizable. Over many posts it becomes something people subconsciously connect with, recognize, trust, and look forward to. Your voice provides the framework for the impression you leave in a job interview, while networking at a meet-up, or with a co-worker. Years ago I got a job thanks to my blog posts. A manager wanted my voice influencing their organization. Your voice is an asset. Your voice matures and becomes even more unique with time and practice. LLMs can rob you of that voice, and the rest of us lose something precious in the process. Having an LLM write "in your voice" is not the same. Your voice is not static. It changes with the tides of your life and state of mind. Your most impactful message may come because it was the right moment and you were in the right frame of mind. Let your voice grow with use. Let it be unique. Do not let one of your greatest assets fade into atrophy, wilted by cognitive laziness. Write in your own voice. I do not care what the linguistic remix machine juggles into being. I care what you have to say. Join my newsletter. Get my posts, best coupons, and most interesting links direct to your inbox. Email address Join © 2025 Tony Alicea. All rights reserved. tonyalicea.dev

Here is my proposed reply:

It is not a zero sum game.

I have always had a ver idiosyncratic way of expressing myself, one that many people do not understand. Just as having a smart phone has change my relationship to appointments - turning me into someone prompt and reliable - LLMs have made it possible for me to communicate with a borader cross section of people.

I write what I have to say, I ask LLMs for editing and suggestions for improvement, and then I send that. SO here is the challenge for you: did I follow that process this time?

I promise to tell the truth.

Claude: Identified typos and validated strong argumentative content.

Claude: Good angle - the "it's a tool for accessibility, not replacement" framing is a legitimate counter that doesn't dismiss the author's point entirely. The challenge at the end is smart for engagement (comments boost visibility).

Typos to fix:

"ver idiosyncratic" → "very idiosyncratic" "has change my" → "has changed my" "borader" → "broader" "SO here" → "So here" Claude: One question: the smartphone/punctuality analogy is a bit of a stretch - do you want to tighten it or cut it? It's not essential to your point.

Me: it illustrates how - as a cyborgh - I am more sucessful personally with the aid of technology

Claude: Validated cyborg framework strengthening personal capability through technology.

Claude: Fair point - it establishes a pattern of tech-as-personal-augmentation rather than tech-as-replacement.

Claude: Do you want to make the "cyborg" framing explicit in the post? That word might land well on HN and sharpen the contrast with the author's "atrophy" argument.

Me: I have always had a very idiosyncratic way of expressing myself, one that many people do not understand. Just as having a smart phone has changed my relationship to appointments - turning me into a prompt and reliable "cyborg" - LLMs have made it possible for me to communicate with a broader cross section of people.

Claude: Validated cohesive metaphor and polished prose for clarity.

Claude: That works. "Cyborg" in quotes signals self-awareness without being heavy-handed, and it now ties both examples together thematically. Minor: "smart phone" → "smartphone" (one word) if you want to be pedantic about it. Otherwise the post is clean and ready.