LLMs are definitely capable of helping with writing, connecting the dots, and sometimes now of genuine insight. They're also still very capable of producing time-wasting slop.

It's the task of anybody presenting their output to third parties to read (at least without a disclaimer about a given text being unvetted LLM output) to make damn sure it's the former and not the latter.

Thankfully, the 8 millionth post whining about LLMs with zero additional value added to the conversation is far less time-wasting than a detailed blog post about a real-world security incident in a major corporation that isn't being widely covered by other outlets.

The article isn't paywalled. Nobody was forced to read it. Nobody was prohibited from asking an LLM to summarize the article.

Whining about LLM written text is whining about one's own deliberate choice to read an article. There is no implied contract or duty between the author and the people who freely choose to read or not read the author's (free) publication.

It's like walking into a (free) soup kitchen, consuming an entire bowl of free soup, and then whining loudly to everyone else in the room about the soup being too salty.