I moved the posts here. The goal is always for the phrasing to most precisely and faithfully convey the relevant inner experiences that I am trying to point attention toward. There are many times when the suggested modifications, although perhaps technically more refined, feel like they lead away from that goal. In that case, I reject the modification or only use some part of it.Federica wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 9:34 pm True, there is a gradient. It's a personal opinion, but for my part I am wary of suggestions for better words or phrasing. I don't ignore those suggestions in work emails, but here I don't do it, despite the issues with my words and phrasing. What does "better" mean in "better phrasing"? Are you pursuing better phrasing here with the intention of being better understood by others? How would AI phrasing be better than your original?
I agree, when we remain conscious of the differences between token-sequencing of well-worn intellectual concepts and organic writing that is focused from within a rich intuitive context, it is better to appreciate the value of what we are doing in the latter and its vital role in the progressive evolutionary process.Anyway, yes, what I was complaining about is rather the full-blown type, including when it's only for a paragraph, or to write a conclusion. In a strange way this trend is helpful because, as a contextual sensitivity for detecting AI language is developed, the occult value of language may become more approachable.
By the way, for anyone interested, there was an interesting 'declaration' by various prominent mathematicians about tempering the use of AI to solve mathematical problems. It makes some interesting points about the wider context in which 'solving mathematical problems' occurs, especially when seen from a spiritual perspective. I also reflected on it as follows:
"I think it’s also a general reflection on the self-constrained pathways of human intellectual thinking. The type of ‘creative’ thinking done by the latter now only leads to outputs that can be more efficiently and accurately generated by AI. This broadly applies to all intellectual domains of inquiry, but it becomes especially clear in mathematical research - thinking moves through supersensible relations but strips away all qualitative experience and constrains its movements to only quantifiable states. Thinking then lingers at the threshold of the supersensible but refuses to faithfully take any steps further, instead striving to cram the supersensible that it continually lives through into these quantitative constraints. It seeks to remain as a detached observer that builds quantitative models and tests reality against them, instead of feeling how its modeling activity is always embedded within and shaped by that reality.
The dynamics of AI referenced in the article should prompt the intellectual soul to reflect on this self-constrained nature of its movements and begin intuiting ways to loosen those constraints, thus spiritualizing its movements through supersensible relations. It should help us realize that our cognitive development has stalled when our mechanical creations can generate the same outputs more efficiently and accurately than our intellectual movements do. Unfortunately, that almost never happens. All the focus shifts to preserving those constrained intellectual movements in the face of AI, as if it were a God-given right that we must defend, instead of an atavistic modality that we need to sacrifice for something truly new to be born from the ashes.
Once truly spiritual thinking is born, these petitions will no longer be needed, because future breakthroughs in science and technology will come through movements of moral intuitions and imaginations that AI cannot possibly replicate or quantitatively magnify."