You nailed it on what I've always wanted to say.

If someone uses LLM to help wording their idea in a way that's easier to understand, I am fine with it as long as they don't copy-paste it verbatim into their blogpost.

I am getting a little ranty here, but the usual LLM-isms like "not this, but that" or "that's the real footnote here" simply add zero value to the text, and I can't imagine anyone who has proofread the LLM-generated text even once will opt to keep those sloppy paragraphs. If I see them, I can't help but to think that the author had oneshotted the text. And it strongly suggests to me that the author has put zero effort into their work.

▲

AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Agree completely. The problem is not the tool, it's all the pointless filler (or even hallucinations) that the tool generates that people leave in.

▲

duped 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree, the problem is the tool. Generating text instead of thinking about what text to use explicitly is not writing, and it's not worthy of someone else reading it.

Fundamental to exchanging ideas is discovering which ideas should be exchanged and how to express them. The process of writing itself is that exercise. If you use a tool to outsource the thinking then you're not thinking.

▲

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent [-]

I definitely think that "not thinking about what you're writing" is a big danger with AI-generated text, but it's not a given. If you generate a block of text and then go through and edit it to better reflect your ideas and voice - that's the thinking process in action. It's also entirely possible to generate slop by manually typing every word - see any corporate communication ever.

	▲	timacles an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You will NEVER be a good to great writer if you use AI to seed your writing and then edit it. _Everything_ AI generates, is generalized slop. All of your ideas will be boring and derivative. Mediocre writers will be improved, but the best would only have their ability to think dulled. Just think through it from the perspective that AI is generating art for you instead of writing. What would all art look like if good artists used it for ideas and "edited" it? It would look like generic, derivative shit. A perpetual crutch that the person can never abandon.
	▲	duped 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I just fundamentally do not agree with you. If you are editing AI generated text to "better reflect your ideas and voice" you are still not using your ideas or your voice. There's no 'thinking process in action' if you've delegated the hardest part of the task to a text predictor! It really bothers me that people think it's ok to use AI as the starting point for writing. In my mind, it's the worst thing you can do. It poisons the entire effort, and frankly it's disrespectful to give it to anyone to read. Stop doing it!