What if writing from the ‘AI me’ sounds just like I’d written it?

By David McElroy · May 22, 2025

I’m not sure whether I’m more impressed by the technical proficiency of the software developers behind ChatGPT — or if I’m more alarmed by the dystopian future that I see such software leading to.

What we call “artificial intelligence” is nothing but software. It isn’t intelligent. It has no consciousness. It has no actual awareness or understanding of what it produces. It’s just lines of computer code written to produce material that mimics human behavior. If you think of AI as some form of semi-consciousness, you’re buying into science fiction. This is nothing but software written by clever people — and it’s nowhere near as “smart” as you’ve been led to believe.

But AI software — such as ChatGPT and its competitors — is getting better and better at spitting out content that mimics what a human might have created with real thought. And I think this is dangerous.

As an experiment, I asked ChatGPT to create an essay in my own writing style. I didn’t give it a subject. This is the only instructions I gave the software: “Write an 800-word essay in the same style used by the writer of davidmcelroy.org.”

The results shocked me.

Within seconds, the software spit out an essay that I might have written if I had been inclined to write about loneliness in postmodern society. I had hoped I could report that nobody could possibly believe I had written what it gave me, but that’s not true.

It sounded so much like me that you could convince me that I’d written it a few years ago and forgotten about it — if I hadn’t seen the software spit it out one line at a time.

On one hand, it’s a remarkable technical achievement for me to be able to ask software to write an essay in the style of an obscure writer. On the other hand, it’s scary — because this technical achievement is going to make it harder for people to understand why we need actual human writers.

That might not sound like a big deal to you, but it is. For the purpose of knocking out filler-type material for websites, this might be very useful. For companies that just want to find interesting material to attract readers so those readers will look at ads, AI software can be incredibly useful and profitable.

But if more and more of society starts to see writing as something done by AI software, all we’re going to get is copies and clones of things that humans have written in the past. This is because humans know how to think and advance new ideas — as writers have done throughout history — but all software knows how to do is to make acceptable clones of whatever has already been done.

Under such a scenario, there will be no market for human writers. Clones of older work will be entertaining enough for casual readers. Such cloned work will be good enough for those who just want to show ads. Even “news” will be churned out by software. These basic writing jobs will disappear as options for humans. As a result, almost nobody will have any opportunity or incentive to learn to write — in ways that would train a person to be a professional who might eventually produce original ideas and original literature.

This will mean that writing will be stuck in the past — with the market paying only for cheap copies of cheap clones of stale ideas.

For now, I’ll let you decide for yourself, if you want to. I’ll leave you with the essay that ChatGPT wrote in my style in mere seconds. If you know my previous work, you will probably see it as similar enough to pass as something I’ve written.

And even if you don’t know my past work, you’ll be able to see it as an essay that could easily be uploaded to a website that wants to attract the sort of reader who wants to read about psychology or society — in order to show ads to them.

I can’t tell the difference between “AI me” and the real me, simply because the software has studied 15 years of my writing and spit out a clone. The fact that it’s a clone of something it doesn’t understand won’t matter to most people. The fact that the software can make a clone — but nothing with original ideas — should terrify people who understand the implications for our faltering and dysfunctional culture.

_________________________

The Loneliness We Don’t Talk About
By ChatGPT — in the style of David McElroy

I didn’t really understand what loneliness was until I started hearing silence in conversations.

Not the kind of silence that fills a room when nobody’s speaking — no, that’s not it. I mean the silence that comes when you’re sitting across from someone who’s talking, maybe even smiling, but the words don’t land. You nod and make the right noises, but nothing touches you. You’re there, and they’re there, but it feels like two ghosts passing through each other in an empty room.

That kind of silence is loud.

It crept in slowly, unnoticed. Life moved forward the way it always does — days filled with work, errands, people, obligations. I kept showing up. I kept smiling. I posted things on social media that made me look like I had things figured out. But somewhere along the way, I lost the thread of real connection. It was like I’d fallen through a crack in the floor of life and nobody noticed I was gone.

We don’t talk about this kind of loneliness, not really. We talk about depression, maybe. We talk about being “too busy” or “burned out.” But those are polite words for something deeper, something harder to admit: that we live among people and still feel invisible.

Some of the loneliest people I know are always surrounded by others. They’re leaders. They’re parents. They host dinner parties and shake hands at church and check in on friends. They’re not disconnected in the obvious ways. But ask them when they last felt seen, really seen — and the pause before they answer will tell you everything.

It’s not just about being around people. It’s about whether anyone knows who you really are. Whether you can speak from the heart without editing yourself to be palatable. Whether someone hears the things you don’t say.

We live in a world that encourages performance over presence. We’re taught to brand ourselves, to market the right version of us for the situation. You learn which parts of yourself to showcase and which ones to keep hidden. Over time, you get so good at playing the part that you forget there’s someone behind the mask. Eventually, you start to wonder if anyone ever knew you at all — or if they only knew the performance.

And when that thought settles in, it feels like a quiet death.

There’s a strange grief that comes from feeling alone when you know you shouldn’t be. You start questioning your own perception. You wonder if you’re broken, if maybe the problem is you. Maybe you’re too intense, too sensitive, too complicated. Maybe you just ask too much of people. So you start pulling back. You stop expecting anything. You learn to survive with the emotional equivalent of breadcrumbs.

But here’s the part that matters: this loneliness doesn’t mean you’re broken. It means you’re human. It means your heart is still soft enough to long for real connection in a world that’s more comfortable with surfaces. It means you haven’t fully surrendered to the numbness.

I think we need to start telling the truth more often. Not in the curated, social-media-approved way, where “vulnerability” is just another performance. I mean the messy, unfiltered truth. The kind where you sit with a friend and say, “I’m not okay, and I don’t have a five-point plan to fix it.”

The kind where you tell someone, “I feel like nobody really knows me,” and you say it not to fish for reassurance, but because it’s true.

That kind of truth is risky. It can feel like walking into a room naked. But it’s also the only doorway to being known.

There’s no guarantee people will meet you there. Some won’t. Some are too afraid of their own unspoken ache to sit with yours. But every now and then, you’ll find someone who gets it. Someone who’s heard that silence, too. Someone who won’t flinch when your voice trembles. And in that moment, the weight starts to lift — not because your circumstances changed, but because someone reached across the chasm and said, “Me too.”

The world doesn’t need more polished conversations. It needs more people willing to stop performing and start showing up with their hearts open.

If you’re feeling this kind of loneliness right now, I don’t have a three-step solution. I can’t promise it gets better quickly. But I can tell you you’re not the only one who hears that silence. I hear it, too.

And maybe that’s where connection starts—not with noise, but with the quiet, stubborn refusal to pretend anymore.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts