Are you speaking in the abstract, or would you, personally, like that when reading a blog?

Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no interest in reading anything written by an LLM that I didn't prompt myself, under really any circumstances I can think of.

> Are you speaking in the abstract, or would you, personally, like that when reading a blog?

It's better than the current status quo, where people post LLM writing without attributing it to the LLM, hoping you'll get tricked into reading.

At least if it's labeled like the GP describes, you know what you're getting and can make your own decision.

On the other hand:

> (It might also be the only way to stop training models on their own output)

On the other hand, I think it's a moral imperative to make it so the models train on their own output. I have absolutely no interest in giving them clean input data. After reading about how ISBNdb is helping them destroy old pre-LLM books for input, I totally think someone who does not have small children should start creating print-on-demand forgeries of such books (with the same ISBN numbers) filled with the most garbage-quality LLM text possible.

You are thinking of something nice to have. At least half the idea here is that it would be nice not to have something.

Usually there are many buttons and links one wouldn't click on.

If authors can't resist having chunks of copy paste slop in the middle of their article they can do it in a way I don't have to see it.

They also get a fair opportunity to impress me with a prompt that looks interesting enough.

And they get to distance themselves from the idea that copying [say] a Wikipedia article into a blog posting is the same as writing something.