You're precluding the possibility that the other party instructed the LLM to write what he intended to say.

That is not currently possible. At best, you could train on millions of personal examples of style, eg historical emails, reports, etc, and you'd still never get what the person would have written.

I'd be astonished if an LLM didn't even miss important nuance, data, and focus on the wrong point.

It think the parent's point was, hearing a summary of what someone was thinking, from a second party isn't interesting as data from the primary source.

When you come to listen to Bob the Great, having a minion walk put and paraphrase Bob's words isnt the same. Human, LLM, or not.

> At best, you could train on millions of personal examples of style, eg historical emails, reports, etc, and you'd still never get what the person would have written.

You wouldn't get it verbatim, but your mistrust in AI reflecting what you intended to say is unwarranted.

I use LLMs to clean up poorly OCR'd hand written notes. It's the exception where I need to "fix" its output. It figures out what the notes intended, and writes it up fairly well.

> It think the parent's point was, hearing a summary of what someone was thinking, from a second party isn't interesting as data from the primary source.

For a lot (most?) of AI slop, I agree. But pre-LLMs, this was universally a bad idea. The first draft always sucked, and was easy to misunderstand. A good LLM, with a good system prompt, will usually produce something better than the input it is fed. Most people are poor at expressing their thoughts.

> When you come to listen to Bob the Great, having a minion walk put and paraphrase Bob's words isnt the same. Human, LLM, or not.

Most people aren't Bob The Great, but Bob The Incoherent.