I seem to remember a book where people starting using AI's like this to automatically improve their email/texts, eventually allowing it to do more (basic responses/appointment scheduling/etc), making communication a lot easier and more efficient.

At some point, the boundary between simply "polishing things up" and actively guiding the interactions became blurry, and the AI eventually becomes the go between between everyone and starts taking over.

We know this response has not been "enhanced" by the AI if my second and third sentences have not been filtered out.

I feel like some of the nuance got lost in at least two places:

"trying to do the wrong thing with ChatGPT" vs "using ChatGPT in the wrong way" "have been "approved" by this AI" vs "have been reviewed and approved by this AI."

I prefer the original phrasing.

Most of it is an improvement, but the change in the first sentence could really change the meaning in a way that may or may not be appropriate. That change is ambiguous but could be important.

Proofreading shouldn't change the meaning or intention of a passage.

Maybe that was the intent (of the AI) :-)

"Significant" improvement? Really? They're almost the same but ChatGPT version removed some of the nuance such as `"approved"` vs `reviewed and approved`. I prefer the human-written version even with the grammar errors.