Meanwhile, more and more posts on discussion forums etc. is clearly "copyedited" by these tools and the result is quite grating for the regulars.

▲

cubefox 2 days ago | parent [-]

Probably less grating though than broken English. (Copyediting is also different from pure LLM replies which don't involve editing anything.)

▲

precompute 2 days ago | parent [-]

Broken English still has its charm and brings the structure of the writer's native language to the fore, which makes it relatively easier to parse and glean intentions from than polished LLM-speak.

	▲	cubefox 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That might be true, but I think it's false. Or more precisely, I think manuscripts with broken English have statistically a higher probability of being rejected than ones that are copyedited with AI.