People who are particular about spelling do not want to write misspelled words! It's not about whether you/others will tolerate it. I have my standards, and I hold to them.

I personally don't use an LLM to spellcheck (browser spellcheck works fine), but I see no problem with someone using an LLM to point out spelling errors.

And while I don't complain about others' spelling errors, I sure do notice them. And if someone writes a long wall of text as one giant paragraph that has lots of spelling/grammatical issues, chances are very high I won't read it.

Some people write very poorly by almost any standard. If an LLM helps the person write better, I'm all for it. There's a world of a difference between copy/pasting from the LLM and asking it for feedback.

▲

the_af 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> I have my standards, and I hold to them.

Spellcheckers exist, you don't need an AI to change your voice.

Also, if you have standards, you can always train yourself to spell better!

▲

BeetleB 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Spellcheckers exist, you don't need an AI to change your voice.

How is using an AI to spell check changing my voice?

Yes, thank you - I know spellcheckers exist, as my comment clearly states. The amusing thing is that an LLM who had access to the thread would have alerted you to a basic error you're making.

> Also, if you have standards, you can always train yourself to spell better!

"You can always ..." is not an argument against alternatives.

▲

the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Calm down. You're getting defensive, but it's not warranted. I'm not attacking you.

> The amusing thing is that an LLM who had access to the thread would have alerted you to a basic error you're making.

I didn't make the "basic error" of assuming you didn't know spellcheckers existed. I was stressing that since spellcheckers already exist, you don't need an AI assisting your comments-writing. Much basic, non-style-altering alternatives exist and are better.

> "You can always ..." is not an argument against alternatives.

The argument I'm making is that if you care so much about standards you can always hone them yourself instead of taking the lazy way out of having an AI write for you.

Alternatively, if you're lazy then your standards aren't too high.

And yes, this is an argument against the alternative you're suggesting.

	▲	yellowapple 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The argument I'm making is that if you care so much about standards you can always hone them yourself instead of taking the lazy way out of having an AI write for you. It's pretty clear that in this case the use of AI is not a matter of laziness, but rather quality/consistency assurance. I use code formatters not because I'm too lazy to indent code myself, but because it helps guarantee that it's formatted consistently. I use a stud finder when mounting things to walls not because I'm too lazy to do the “knock on the wall” trick, but because the stud finder is more precise and reliable at it. I don't use AI to edit my comments, but if I did, it would be not because I'm too lazy to check for all the things I want to avoid putting in my comments, but as an extra layer of assurance on top of what I've already trained myself to do.