I think I’ve finally pinpointed why it is that I have an allergic reaction when I’m confronted with a text that has me as the intended recipient, but that has been run through an LLM to change or “clean up” the wording - especially if it’s internal communication or even direct communication. Well, at the very least, I think I’ve found the vocabulary to express the idea:

When you run your message through an LLM, it will inevitably obscure what you actually wanted to say; we choose words for a reason after all - even if they’re sometimes not the right words.

But what’s far worse is that it robs the intended recipient of the ability to actually interpret the message according to the accrued knowledge of how you write, and the subtler notes of the tone your message carries, your choice of emphasis or omission, and so on.

As you interact with people, you build this atlas of implicit knowledge about them; it’s the reason why “…we need to talk” coming from two different people might carry vastly different meanings and emotional undercurrents. I know you, and that knowledge informs how I read your text. And if I don’t know you, the words you choose combined with the interactions we have help me build that understanding.

In short: running your texts through the genericizer causes a disruption of the synchronization process between conversational partners. The social handshake component. The unseen fabric that allows us to communicate effectively and honestly. It robs me of getting to know you.

Make mistakes, use idioms that don’t work in English, be too frank or too flowery in your wording, but give me the courtesy of the ability to interpret the message in the context of all aspects that actually went into its creation. Let me get in tune with you.