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.

I think the feedback that LLMs were used not very successfully in the making of TFA is valid criticism and might even help other/future authors.

We're probably reading LLM-assisted or even generated texts many times per day at this point, and as long as I don't notice that my time is being wasted by bad writing or hallucinated falsehoods, I'm perfectly fine with it.

Sure, there's no guy with a gun forcing you to read it.

But we're on a site about sharing content for intellectual discussion, right? So when people keep posting the same garbage without labeling it, and you figure it halfway though the article, it's frustrating to find out you wasted your time.

To use your soup analogy: imagine this was a website to share restaurants. You see a cool new Korean place upvoted, so you stop by there for lunch sometime. You sit down, you order, and then ten minutes later, Al comes out with his trademark thin, watery soup again.

In that scenario, it's entirely reasonable to leave a comment, "Ugh, don't bother with this place, it's just Al and his shitty soup again."