ChatGPT and similar generative AI tech has got me to think more carefully about what it is that I value in these modes of human communication. If there were an

ChatGPT and similar generative AI tech has got me to think more carefully about what it is that I value in these modes of human communication. If there were an AI that observed the author in minute detail and could approximate with high accuracy how 'you' would communicate something like a layoff letter -- what is lost if the author of said letter used the AI or wrote it from the top of their heads? Even if word for word it would be the same -- is something lost when the human author does not spend the time consulting their own brain and emotions to produce the words 'on the page'? Or is it enough that it's what they _would_ have said. At the very least a human composed message means that they took the time to search their own mind and feelings to come up with the message. And that they felt something in the process. And that by the act of composing the message they must have been transformed, if only in the smallest way. Whereas if a CEO told their secretary to press the button on the AI for them and mail out the message, they are not transformed. They did not expose themselves to the 'difficulty' of the message. They outsourced the vulnerability required to do so. I think also in the past many layoff memos may have been ghost written. Is that really much different from a generative AI. And in the same way, a ghost written memo, if known, would be denounced as insincerity for the same reason above. It's not the destination that matters, it's the alleged journey.