Not a defense of AI, but in general the Epstein coalition has just been skirting the line between mentally challenged and cartoon villain every time they open their mouth. Even without an llm’s these are the most depraved people in the world.
True, but this isn’t an accident either. AI is most prevalent in places where authenticity and meaning have already been destroyed by late stage capitalism.
Email writing? There was no fucking humanity left in it before AI came along, it was already a mess of language forms that only complexified over time making a judgement of how to convey something short and simple an extended process of trying to guess what the correct social norms are to employ in that situation.
I hope email and job applications become hopelessly flooded with AI crap, they both deserve to die as a forms of humans communicating with humans as there is no reality, no meaning left to these mediums of interaction. AI is just an underlining of that pre-existing enshittification of communication which boths means blaming AI is missing the point and also that blaming AI IS the point because it is just the newest form of cancer in our society from a long, storied line of dangerous bullshitters and their tools of violence against meaning.
Pete Hegseth is
aTERRIBLEadvertisement for writing public speeches with AI.To verify that, I’d have to listen to a speech Hegseth wrote himself for comparison—and there’s nothing I’d rather not do.
Hey I have an app called HegSaid which I made to support Pete where every speech he is made is translated into a language bros like me and you can actually understand, and not all military policy wonk, complicated stuff professionals like Pete Hegseth use which hurts your brain.
All you have to do is take a picture of a Coors Lite beer you have postmarked for the mail to Pete Hegseth’s office and in return the AI will translate a Hegseth speech for you into an approachable format even someone who isn’t a warfighter can understand.
Iirc HegSaid uses the same AI as the Super Earth voting booths, so it’s certainly in good hands
The funny thing is that Hegseth was a Fox news host so he has lots of ability to read well written things but he chooses to use the most average speeches from the averaging machines. We are used to generations of dedicated speech writers and now that they don’t have them it shows how simple minded they really. Hegseth is basically just Ron Burgundy tantrum moments as a person.
Pete Hegseth is
aTERRIBLEadvertisement for writing public speeches with AI.Why did you copy someone’s else statement?
It bears repeating. Pete Hegseth is terrible.
It bears repeating. Pete Hegseth is terrible.
I didn’t, it looks like we had the same thought at about the same time.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today I want to talk about something many people are excited about: artificial intelligence. AI can help us write emails, summarize reports, generate ideas, and yes—draft speeches. It’s a powerful tool. But like any powerful tool, it reveals something important about us: technology can assist judgment, but it cannot replace it.
That brings me to a very public example: Pete Hegseth.
If you’ve been paying attention to recent public discourse, you may have seen speeches and statements associated with him that sparked debate—not just about the content itself, but about how they may have been written. Many people suspect that AI tools were involved. And when those speeches fall flat, contradict themselves, or sound oddly mechanical, critics jump to one conclusion: “AI wrote this.”
But here’s the truth we should understand: bad speeches are not a failure of AI. They’re a failure of the human using it.
AI can generate structure, language, and ideas, but it cannot replace authenticity, judgment, or responsibility. A strong speech comes from clarity of thought, understanding of the audience, and a genuine message. If someone simply copies and pastes machine-generated words without reflection, editing, or ownership, the result will sound hollow—no matter how advanced the technology is.
So when people say that certain speeches are a “terrible advertisement for AI,” they’re actually pointing to something deeper. AI doesn’t stand at a podium. AI doesn’t decide what values to defend or what message to send. Humans do.
The lesson isn’t that AI makes communication worse. The lesson is that AI magnifies the communicator.
A thoughtful speaker can use AI to research faster, refine language, and test ideas. A careless speaker will use it as a shortcut—and the audience will hear that shortcut immediately.
Public speech has always required responsibility. The tools change—typewriters, teleprompters, word processors, and now AI—but the core requirement remains the same: the speaker must mean what they say.
So instead of blaming the technology when a speech fails, we should remember a simple principle:
AI can help you write words. But it cannot help you believe them.
And the audience always knows the difference.
Thank you.
(sorry, I can’t resist replying to posts like that with AI-generated examples of what they’re complaining about; in this case, the above was generated by ChatGPT)
Edit what a perfect example of how fake and fluff filled AI writing is.
All of that could just have been said with “Don’t blame the tool, blame the person using it”
I didn’t even tell ChatGPT what the contents should be, I just told it to write a public speech about your initial showerthought, didn’t give it any instructions what it should or shouldn’t say.
In fact I agree with you that it ended up as an ironic illustration of what AI writing is like at its worst.
My bad, the way you posted it felt like you were kind of trying to troll me by posting an AI response that disagreed with what I said in an annoying way lol and I did not get you were making that point.
I would have copy-pasted it verbatim no matter what the output would have been, didn’t know what it would be before. :D
