Then your assignment is to type or copy my assignment for you into ChatGPT (3.5, i.e. regular ChatGPT, or 4) or Bard and ask it to explain what the assignment means. I have verified that all three of them generate text that is consistent with what a human would write if they understood the assignment and were explaining it, if you add, in addition to the one sentence description of the assignment, this information about context: The context is a disagreement about what constitutes tone policing.

If you continue to be confused, you can query it.

LLMs are an extremely useful tool for some things and it's well worth developing the skill to use them effectively for those things.

I'm not going to take your suggestion about revamping your posts for genuine niceness, of course.

But I will explain why, since you have asked something related a couple of times. Even if I were motivated to write articles on this topic, I find your posts so deeply flawed that it's easier to start from scratch than find the parts worth rescuing. For instance, even the idea of "all the male converts you've heroically convinced to treat women as people" is either patronizingly wrong or is targeted at a tiny barbaric demographic that neither of us will reach on Medium. (The overwhelming majority of men already acknowledge not just that women are people but that they should be treated equally and believe that they at least attempt to do so.) It's almost entirely a question of how to treat people, not a question of whether women should be treated "as people". (Newsflash: people don't exactly treat each other all that well, sometimes.)

As another example, your approach in this article included the injunction to affirm, if only through silence, the "incontrovertible" statement "Dating is more dangerous for straight women than it is for straight men."

Do I think silent affirmation is going to make any difference in actual behavior? Very doubtful. Do I think it's patronizing to ask? Yes. Do I think the statement is "incontrovertible"? Well...it depends what you mean by "dangerous"; physically, of course yes, but emotionally it's a lot less clear. Would written assent help? No, that probably just is indicative of someone who already knows; there's no insight here. So it's pretty close to useless.

But let's not give up so easily. Granting that there may be cases where the differential physical danger of dating is, in fact, a source of tension, and some people who haven't really thought about it maybe could benefit from internalizing it more, what would we do? First, in order to motivate enough attention, we need to make it seem more appealing, so we say something like, "Guys, want some tips about how to better understand what women are thinking?" Then, we want to ask them in an empowering-to-them way, one that respects their agency, to consider the issue we've identified. "Have you thought about what it's like to be a woman dating? There are some real creeps out there, really dangerous guys. That makes dating pretty high-stakes for them, doesn't it?" Finally, we have to recognize that most everyone is going to view themselves as some kind of hero, so even if they're at risk of being the creep, we acknowledge that with something like, "She can't read your mind. She can't tell if you're that guy. So what do you think would make sense for her to do?" This might now seem too mysterious, so we might want to follow up with an answer, preferably taken from answers given by a selection of women so they're appropriately representative.

Probably not great, but a lot better, and a lot of work; and then it isn't even (unless you're in a college town) anywhere near the top priority. Why would I do that (unless I'm showing off my peacock-tail of virtue to get dates or something)? I could just start at what I see as the actual top priorities, based on statistics and plausibility of effecting change, and write my own stuff on those.