I don't think anyone needs to disclose the tools they used to write something. Nobody ever disclosed Word's grammar suggestions or spelling corrections, or the fact that they used some autocomplete tool to produce code, so we should they now need to start disclosing this tool. Besides, in it's current state, it discloses itself to anyone paying attention.

I do think people own the output they produce regardless of the tools they use, and if they want to put crappy writing out there with their name on it, that's on them. Even if they do disclose that it was written by an LLM, they're still 100% responsible for the content.

▲ zahlman 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Nobody ever disclosed Word's grammar suggestions or spelling corrections

And plenty of people have made mistakes that clearly indicate mindlessly accepting such a "correction" when it was wrong (as opposed to just making a typo, or genuinely lacking skill in English, which both generally look different); and it's historically been common to poke fun at that.

> or the fact that they used some autocomplete tool to produce code

Right, because there are really only two options: either it's effectively guaranteed to be what the user would have written by hand anyway, or it's unambiguously wrong and does the wrong thing.

Not at all comparable to LLM prose.

> and if they want to put crappy writing out there with their name on it, that's on them.

The problem is that people who don't care (and quite possibly have no real sense for crappy writing) are vastly more enabled by the technology than people who do.

▲ hallole an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh please, come on now. Grammar correction (which gets applied to text that you wrote) isn't comparable to LLM text generation. A tool assists a user in a task. LLMs don't assist you in writing: they do it all on their own. There's obviously a continuum here (at what point does a tool become so helpful that it ceases being a tool?), but I think I echo the general consensus.

> in it's current state, it discloses itself to anyone paying attention.

Well, unfortunately, I've still sunk a good bit of time into reading texts that I only realize to be AI-authored part way through. Plus, it's constantly being made harder to discern human-authorship.

▲ 27183 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really care about the tool per se, but if I'm reading some LLM output you give me its utility is awfully limited if you don't also supply the prompt. That's what I'd like to see normalized:

  Do not give me LLM output unless you also give me the full prompt text.

Without the prompt I cannot discern what you were trying to do, because the LLM output is basically devoid of any coherent voice. Whether it's code, prose, or pictures don't bother sending it to me unless you also include the prompt text.

[edit] I suspect the fact that people are often reticent to share their prompts says quite a lot about how and why they're using an LLM.

▲

lacunary 2 hours ago | parent [-]

it's often not a single prompt but a tree or rooted DAG of many prompts, with the root node being the final prompt. the prompts on interior nodes might not make much sense without the intermediate responses as well. how would you like this communicated?

	▲	27183 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just a chat log would be acceptable. Like an IRC channel log or slack channel history. It would be even better if, say in the case of code, there was a durable mapping between prompts and commits, that way I could follow the prompts linearly and review every commit associated with that prompt. For other forms of output (prose, pictures, whatever) this would also be useful to be able to see the history of its development.