Nobody wants your generic AI

If you’re going to use it, at least keep it behind the scenes …

Here’s a rewritten version that keeps the same argument and tone while sounding more original:

Most people understand—or at least ought to—that while their dreams may feel vivid and fascinating to them, they're usually excruciatingly boring to everyone else. If you're lucky, you might have a friend who patiently listens to dream recaps (hold on to that person), but it's generally a mistake to assume others are eager to hear the details.

I'm willing to believe there are circles where dropping AI chat logs into group chats is perfectly normal and even welcomed. Even so, you should never assume that strangers have any interest in your AI-generated conversations.

Jumping into a social media discussion and summoning a chatbot with, “Hey Grok, what do you think?” is the digital equivalent of forcing an unwilling audience into ….

And yes, Grok in particular makes the example even harder to defend.

There's a level of annoyance beyond dragging an AI chatbot into a conversation where it wasn't invited: reading something written by a stranger, asking an AI to produce a critique of it, and then sending that AI-generated response back to the original author.

Even the companies building these systems acknowledge that their outputs require human review because they can be inaccurate, misleading, or simply wrong. If you encounter an argument you disagree with but don't understand well enough to challenge yourself, outsourcing the rebuttal to an AI doesn't solve that problem. You still lack the understanding needed to evaluate whether the response is actually correct.

What you've produced isn't necessarily a rebuttal. It's a collection of convincing-sounding sentences that may or may not contain a coherent or valid criticism. Until someone knowledgeable examines those claims individually and verifies them, the output is little more than probabilistic text arranged into the shape of an argument.

It's worth repeating: prompting a chatbot to generate criticism does not transfer expertise to the person writing the prompt. When one person publishes an argument and another objects to it without fully understanding it, the only individual in that exchange who is equipped to assess the AI's claims may well be the original author—the very stranger who just received the transcript.

Sending unverified AI-generated objections to someone isn’t meaningful engagement. In effect, you’re asking that person to spend their own time fact-checking, interpreting, and evaluating material you didn’t verify yourself.

Strangers are free quality-control systems for your chatbot output, and they are obligated to perform the careful review that should have happened before you hit send.