I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.

  1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM.
  2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship.
  3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.

You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims.

As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.

You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.

▲ Planktonne 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

> are you disagreeing with them all

Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and people who who think they're doing 'assisted authorship' tend to be mistaken.

I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.

	▲	supermatt 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Yes Well you are of course entitled to disagree. > I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM. What you actually said was that I "didn't put any meaningful thought into it". Thats the INPUT, not OUTPUT. Anyway. I think we're as far as we are going to get with this "discussion". Have a good evening!