> This wasn't your original question, which I answered.

No, their original question was,

> Who is using an LLM as a spell checker?

(Emphasis mine)

> This "moving the goalposts", requiring me to know the internals of say a closed source product, just proves my original point. I can't know if an LLM is being used because I don't have the source code.

It's not moving the goalposts, you pointed at research showing that somebody theoretically looked at using LLMs for that purpose, not evidence that anybody is actually doing so which is obviously what we're discussing. This is getting into Russell's Teapot territory; yes, a closed source system could do anything, but it would be nice if we had literally any evidence that they were doing so, especially when you're proposing that they burn orders of magnitude more compute on something that isn't really better than existing systems (i.e. there are obvious downsides).

Edit: I see that you have now posted another comment actually providing that evidence. That's actually compelling; thanks.

Nobody has moved the goalposts. You claimed that "most spell checkers" would be disallowed by this policy because they use LLMs. You are simply being asked to substantiate that rather bold claim.

I think you moved the goalposts, they asked for a spell checker, you provided a paper

Autocorrect != spellcheck