Thanks for the thoughtful reply. >In retrospect, I think it's possible I took all of this the wrong way. But even after reading the post a 2nd time, I can stil

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. >In retrospect, I think it's possible I took all of this the wrong way. But even after reading the post a 2nd time, I can still read it both ways. I think what you're saying resonates with me, and tbh yes this type of tool could definitely go in the direction of having the AI write slop. That wasn't my intention with it, because at that point you could just have chatGPT write the whole thing from the start. But I think the very nature of the tool lends itself to being able to do that. >This isn't necessarily your fault - I think the issue is that the current tech landscape is filled with tools and people eager to use those tools to pump out content. When I read "write more efficiently", my mind goes to the tools that promise the same thing and accomplish it by generating slop. I realize you explicitly stated you don't want to contribute to slop, but that stated goal and what a tool does are potentially different things. I think it's an interesting problem. Autocomplete could be great in theory if it actually predicted what I was going to say. If it's putting words in my mouth, I agree, it's not great in this context. The research topics is an attempt at this - the goal is to generate suggested search queries to lookup references, based on the existing content of the blog. These are queries that I would have to do manually otherwise. >One suggestion - a very brief demo that shows the UI in operation would go far to clear up these misconceptions. The generative part of my own brain took the static examples and imagined outcomes that may be essentially hallucinations. Great idea, I'll do that next time. Anyways, thanks for the feedback! I just started blogging recently, so I appreciate it.