So, to be clear, you’re upset by their transparency that they used LLMs while plenty of other writers use it to:

  * brainstorm
  * reword hard sections they garbage’d out on accident
  * catch typos / formatting / flow issues

But only because they chose strong transparency about their activity?

▲ kamranjon 4 days ago | parent [-]

The disclaimer said the article was drafted with the help of an LLM - if they just did the list of things you mentioned I wouldn’t think they would need to put up a disclaimer (you don’t see disclaimers saying this article was written with the help of Google or Wikipedia) - the fundamental issue I think is that they are letting the LLM actually write the article, which I think people know, pretty viscerally, that they disagree with.

I had the same reaction, which is that I do not want to read something that was written by an LLM and immediately backed out - which is great I really appreciate their disclaimer, it helped me not waste my time on things I don’t personally want to consume.

	▲	t-writescode 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Alternatively, they could be very, very conscious of being hyper-honest. There is a huge amount of overlap between people with a “strong sense of justice” (and honesty about using controversial technologies could be covered in that), and people on this forum. You might not think that’s sufficient for a disclaimer; but if I was worried about AI use and wanted to be super duper up front, I would put that on my own journal if I used it for the things I mentioned.