> Worse, it, to my ear, very clearly is written in a style that's extremely reminiscent of LLMs. In that way, it directly invokes that feeling of inauthenticity when he claims authorship.

I get that and also find the style annoying. But, e.g. when I wear a garment that was clearly machine sewn, sit on furniture made with powertools, look at a photo (where a mechanical process determined what pigments appear where, with what intensity), if I eat a taco whose tortilla was industrially rolled ... none of those things seems like a reason to challenge someone taking credit and responsibility for creating a thing, even if 250 years ago they would have had to engage in a much more onerous manual process to create something similar.

So what is it about writing that feels so inauthentic when the human delegates the word choice and sentence structure to a machine? Is it just cultural expectations, and we'll get used to it as LLMs exist longer?

I wonder if partly there's a feeling of disrespect on the part of the reader -- if the author couldn't be bothered to write every word, it's presumptuous to think that other people's time is less valuable and they should read word by word.

Cummins doesn't expect anyone to examine the details of every poppy; we look at the overall effect and maybe admire the detail on one or two flowers. Koons doesn't leave enough evidence of the individual welds for audiences to inspect them; that would destroy the effect. But the default way to consume a language based work is at the word level, and you can't just take in the gestalt in a moment, so the implied demands on attention are greater?