The Scarf Witch

Judgements on the ChatGPT accent have become the new discernment shortcut to me. And I think that the very thing about discernment – personal discernment – is in understanding the nuance, and finding the truth and distortion in everything. Staying both skeptical and curious. I do think language will necessarily evolve in this, and this type of cadence will be more and more pervasive because we mirror each other and it sort of snowballs.

I think it is a fair checkpoint to say, “hey, give it a try to put it in your own words”. There’s something to the humanness of being “messy” – like how a hand made object will have imperfections. But even there – there are artists who perfect their craft so much that it is hard to find an imperfection.

There’s also something to wanting to share an idea and not having the capacity or skill to be able to share the idea coherently. Arguments: How do you learn if you let the tool do all the work? Or “oh you are just being lazy”. Don’t get be started on the moralization of effort. And who is to say where someone is on their journey of learning?

I’m not even going to touch the arguments around the impact on the environment, as I think it is very easy to pick and choose what environmental impacts we are going to be concerned about. I think the question of environmental impact of AI is better suited in a conversation about how we make it more efficient – not to get rid of it. I am very much “solar punk” when it comes to emerging technologies.

But really – this particular musing is not meant to be a conversation about the use of AI specifically, but that I’ve noticed an old pattern of discernment flattening and binary thinking resurface, even within my own judgements that is worth reflection.

I cut my teeth on spirituality in the New Age section of borders and Barnes Noble in the late 90s. And as a young adult, I became very skeptical, borderline atheist for a moment. Never really could be, though. I was always very agnostic about the whole thing. But I was so very afraid to say the stupid thing, say something that sounded gullible or naive.

Then when I allowed myself to start exploring the magic again, the litmus test became, don’t say anything that’s cultural appropriation. It all ended up being all of these external rules, these frameworks that I had to follow, the red flags that somebody else set, the be careful of taking in information this person is saying because of these buzzwords that they’re using. If they’re using these buzzwords, then you can’t trust anything that they’re saying. And I got to a certain point with myself that I realize that there is truth and distortion in everything.

I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t like to throw the baby out with the bath water. But then I find myself brushing up against this old pattern: the thing now you have to watch out for when people talk this way is, “do they have the ChatGPT tells?” I find myself with judgements around that. For myself and others, I do get nervous that things I’m saying and the comparisons that I make end up coming across like GPT. I do use it to help me sort out my thoughts. I think it is a great amplifier and it has been a meta lesson in discernment. I caught myself sending a text to a friend where I started it with, “I’m going to say this gently…” and quickly acknowledged, “Oh… maybe I need a GPT break” because I found myself talking like it, even if I wasn’t actively using it in that moment.

And then when I listen to others, if I hear something, too, with that rhythm or saying things like, “And the thing that people don’t say out loud”, I’m like, “ugh, god, here we go.” But at the same time, there could still be valuable information there. There may be something in there that sparks a curiosity for me. You know, the issue is throwing personal discernment out the window, which is already a practice that I’ve learned how to develop. And I think that that’s different than any litmus test, any red flag, any framework, anything where it’s categorizing or moralizing something as inherently bad. I think it could be dangerous, anyway, to discount someone’s expression because of how they’re expressing it. Although we have to all follow our own. Whatever we’re responding to, and we have to be honest to that. I mean, nobody has to do anything. I just. I find it a fascinating study of human behavior. An awareness of the currents that I find myself moving through. Is a fun ride. That’s part of the joy of the ride.

EXPERIMENT!

The bulk of the above was taken from a video that I recorded off the cuff. I added some things to it. I also pasted that in, as an experiment, and asked it to give a standard clean-up, and then one in my voice. Could I have spent some time editing the above a bit? Sure. If I were putting it into my memoirs, I might. But perhaps – if I read it, and it still sounds like me – just slightly more polished – I’m not sure that I’m mad at it.

Standard Blog Style

Discernment, AI, and the New Shortcut Problem

Lately, I’ve been noticing something interesting: judgments about “ChatGPT voice” have started to function as a kind of shortcut for discernment.

If something sounds too polished, too structured, too familiar in cadence, it gets flagged. Dismissed, even. And while I understand the instinct, I think it points to a deeper issue—one that has less to do with AI itself and more to do with how we practice discernment.

At its core, discernment isn’t about quick categorization. It’s about nuance. It’s the ability to hold both skepticism and curiosity at the same time, and to recognize that most things contain a mix of truth and distortion. When we rely too heavily on surface-level signals—buzzwords, tone, stylistic patterns—we risk flattening that process into something binary: trustworthy or not, real or artificial, good or bad.

Language evolves. It always has. And right now, we’re in a moment where certain rhythms and structures are becoming more common, in part because we mirror what we’re exposed to. AI is part of that feedback loop. It’s not separate from us—it’s participating in the same pattern-building process.

There’s also something worth acknowledging about expression itself. Not everyone has the same capacity or skill to articulate their thoughts clearly. Tools like AI can act as amplifiers, helping people bridge the gap between what they feel or think and what they can communicate. The critique that “you won’t learn if the tool does the work” or that using it is “lazy” often carries an unexamined moralization of effort. But learning isn’t linear, and expression isn’t a fixed skillset. Everyone is somewhere different in that process.

For me, this isn’t really about defending or critiquing AI. It’s about noticing a familiar pattern re-emerging—one where discernment gets outsourced to external rules or simplified heuristics.

I’ve seen this pattern before in my own life.

I first encountered it in spirituality. I grew up exploring the New Age sections of bookstores in the late ’90s, then swung hard into skepticism as a young adult. I became almost afraid to say the wrong thing—to sound naive, gullible, or uninformed.

Later, when I returned to spiritual exploration, the rules had changed but the pattern was the same. Instead of skepticism, it was about avoiding cultural appropriation, avoiding certain language, avoiding certain teachers. Discernment became a checklist of red flags defined by someone else.

Eventually, I realized that approach didn’t work for me. There is truth and distortion in everything. Throwing something out entirely because it triggers a surface-level concern often means losing something valuable along with it.

And now, I see a similar dynamic emerging again. The “tell” has changed—it’s no longer just spiritual buzzwords, but AI cadence. If something sounds like ChatGPT, it becomes suspect.

I’ve noticed this in myself, too. I’ve caught myself reacting to certain phrases or rhythms with immediate dismissal. I’ve also caught myself unintentionally mirroring that tone in my own speech, to the point where I’ve had to pause and recalibrate.

But the presence of a pattern doesn’t negate the potential value of what’s being said.

The real risk isn’t AI-generated language. It’s the loss of personal discernment—the willingness to engage, to filter, to sit with something long enough to sense what resonates and what doesn’t.

Discernment isn’t a shortcut. It’s a practice.

And maybe that’s the point worth returning to.

Version 2: In Your Voice

The ChatGPT Accent as a Discernment Shortcut

I’ve been noticing something in myself, and out in the wild, that feels familiar in a way I don’t totally love.

Judgments on the “ChatGPT accent” are becoming a new discernment shortcut.

Like… if something sounds too polished, too structured, too “and the thing people don’t say out loud is…” there’s this immediate ugh, here we go. And I get it. I’ve had that reaction. I still do.

But the more I sit with it, the more it feels like the same old pattern in a new outfit.

Because discernment, actual personal discernment, isn’t supposed to be that fast. It’s not supposed to be a litmus test. It’s not supposed to collapse into “this tone equals not trustworthy.”

It’s nuance. It’s holding skepticism and curiosity at the same time. It’s being willing to find the truth and the distortion in something instead of throwing the whole thing out.

And I think language is only going to get messier here, in a good way. We mirror each other. We always have. So of course certain cadences are going to snowball. That’s what we do.

At the same time, I do think it’s a fair checkpoint to say, try putting it in your own words.

There’s something human about that. The slight messiness. The imperfection. Like a handmade object, you can feel the person in it.

But even that gets tricky, because there are people who have refined their craft so much that the “imperfections” disappear. So then what? Are they less human? Or just more practiced?

And then there’s the other side of it. Someone who has something to say, but doesn’t yet have the capacity or skill to say it clearly.

So they use a tool.

And then the argument becomes:

• “Well, how do you learn if the tool is doing the work?”
• “That’s lazy.”

And honestly… don’t get me started on the moralization of effort.

Who decides where someone is on their learning curve? Who decides what counts as “earned” expression?

I’m not even going to go deep on the environmental arguments here, because that conversation gets selectively applied so fast. To me, that’s a conversation about efficiency and design, not elimination. I’m very solar punk about emerging tech.

But this isn’t really about AI.

This is about noticing an old pattern of discernment flattening out again. Binary thinking creeping back in. Even in me.

Because I’ve seen this before.

I cut my teeth on spirituality in the New Age sections of Borders and Barnes & Noble in the late 90s. Then I swung hard the other way, skeptical, almost atheist for a minute. I was so afraid of sounding stupid. Gullible. Naive.

And then when I came back to it, when I let myself explore the magic again, the rules had just changed shape.

Don’t say the wrong thing.

Don’t use the wrong language.

Watch for these buzzwords.

If someone says this, you can’t trust any of it.

Same pattern. Different filter.

And I got to a point where I was like… I don’t actually believe that anymore.

There’s truth and distortion in everything.

I don’t like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But here I am again, brushing up against it. Just updated.

Now it’s:

“Do they sound like ChatGPT?”

And I can feel the judgment come online. In myself and toward others.

I’ve even caught it in my own language. I sent a text the other day that started with, “I’m going to say this gently…” and immediately had the thought, okay, maybe I need a GPT break.

Not because I was using it in that moment. But because I’ve been around it enough that the cadence starts to imprint.

And then on the flip side, I’ll hear someone else using that same rhythm and have that internal reaction like, ugh, here we go.

But also…

There could still be something there.

Something useful. Something interesting. Something that sparks curiosity.

And if I write it off too quickly, I’m not actually practicing discernment anymore. I’m just swapping one shortcut for another.

For me, the real thing to watch isn’t the presence of a pattern.

It’s whether I’m outsourcing my discernment to that pattern.

Because that’s the part that gets dangerous.

And also… a little boring.

I’d rather stay in the tension. Let it be a little messier. Let myself respond honestly to what I’m actually picking up, not just the packaging.

It’s a fascinating study, honestly.

Watching the currents I move through.

And catching the moments where I forget I know how to swim.