I would have said there is no problem with your style (nothing brash/abrasive), but you used a lot of jargon, that people who are not very deep into LLMs (large language models) would not understand. Interests of hackernews visitors are very diverse, not everyone follows LLMs that closely.

I think the only thing you really need to do is unpack your jargon so people who aren't exactly you can understand what you're saying. Even on this site, there are folks with all sorts of different experiences and cultural context, so shortcuts in phrasing don't always come across clearly.

For example, "in which case the world goes all Huxley really fast." "Huxley" apparently means something to you. Would it mean anything at all to someone who hasn't read any Aldous Huxley? As someone who _has_, I still had to think about it -- a lot. I assumed you're referring to a work of his literature rather than something he actually believed, as Huxley's beliefs about the world certainly had a place for the contrarian and the original.

Further, I assume you are referring to his most well-known work, _Brave New World_, rather than (for example) _Island_, so you're not saying that people would be eating a lot of psychedelic mushrooms and living together in tolerant peace and love.

I don't at all think you need to sound like GPT to be a successful communicator, but you will be more successful the more you consider your audience and avoid constructions that they're unlikely to be able to understand without research.

People aren’t passing you through a filter because you are brash and undiplomatic and “unaligned”, it’s because your communication style is borderline incomprehensible.

I used to struggle a lot in communication for talking to people in the authentic self way you just described. Being too direct and telling my point of view in such a way has caused tension with family, colleagues and the girlfriend.

The moment I change the way I talk and say instead of "That's bullshit, let's move away from it" to "That could be a challenging and rewarding experience", and I can already see the advantage.

I rather like to talk the way I want, but I see it as challenging and not that rewarding as people seem to get more sensitive. That made me wonder if the way GPT-style chatbots communicate with humans would make humans expect the same way of communication from other humans.

Porque no los dos? While I truly appreciate your OP and could grok it even though I don't know the tech, the summary and rewrites saved me a ton of googling. I hope one day we have a 'see vernacular/original' button for all thought and communication so people can choose what level to engage in without the author having to change their communication style. Translation for personal dialects, so to say.

Real Ben >> GPT Ben. However if you are going to the wider world you problem need to self varnish a lot (i know i would have to). You are fine in here!

What you are alluding to is quite similar to the that “instagram face” that everyone pursues and self filters for except its more about your communication and thoughts. Also the argument that you need to reach a wider audience i dint think isn't necessary unless you want the wider audience to comment and engage.

The internet is the great homogenizer soon(ish) we will be uniform.

I think this is just in the short-term. In the long term GPTs will retain our personality while making the message more understandable - which I think is the most important thing. Although McLuhan would disagree. Benefits, though, might include AI making cross-cultural translation so you can converse with someone with a different language and very different experiences and still understand each other. I think that's good? Maybe?

Personally I had no problem with your post being too abrasive or anything like that, it was just hard to understand because it was full of jargon.

Your posts are my favorite thing about Hacker News, both because of the things you're saying and the way you're saying them; please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.