On consistency is a chapter in Epictetus's discourses. I haven't read it yet, but would like to. The core disillusion I deal with in any attempt to try and do my work is the wavering instability of my ability to maintain consistency with any practice.

Did an AI write this? Maybe it might as well have? What sublime property does human generated text have that AI generated text does not?

Is it an unspoken intent, a silent goal, that is not reached? Do we read passages of books contemplating an asymptote of meaning that the text itself is never able to fully illustrate?

AI text has no such asymptote - it says as it does without anything unsaid. It is both the finger and the moon which it points to. Human text is merely the finger pointing, the sublime aspect of it invites us to look where it gestures or, even more humanity-like, to look at the person pointing.

This sublime nature is what makes human writing what it is, and it is what makes AI generated text necessarily "other worldly", because a gesture without a pointer is merely an object.

A block of GPT text has as much meaning as a rock sitting in a field of grass. The meaning, when you decide to see it, comes from you fabricating an agent of composition. It is a lacking in your ability to not comprehend a text without an author. Even when you read text written by a human your understanding of it is in part a product of your self acting as a conduit for the true author.

When there is no author, it is all yourself. Those who can't see the beauty or fun in AI text are bankrupt in their self.

Those who can't see the sublime nature of human generated text are bankrupt to nature.

When you fully come to realize that the self and nature are inseparably entangled, you'll be forced to reckon with the fact that even when you sit on a couch and write words with your hand on paper in ink - even then you can not escape the problem of the finger and the moon.