I challenge the author to post their prompts and unless they one-shotted this (which seems unlikely), then I can basically guarantee you that you would not rather read the prompts. In particular because 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot and if you think you don't like reading an AI-assisted short story, you really don't like reading a chat transcript (for one thing, it'll be at least 10x as long and with a lot more and worse chatbot output that the human will try to clean up).

When ChatGPT was still a new thing, I exported all of my conversations to a Markdown dir to try and reflect on what I spent a few months using it for. The AI responses were just walls of useless text, skimmed for a single most trivial point to prompt the next question, and re-reading them without the usual dopamine high felt even more grating. I found most success just writing a sed pipeline to remove all chatbot responses and only read my replies, grepping the original for missing context.

> 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot

I think, reading just the human inputs would be enough to get what they were trying to do.

> it'll be at least 10x as long

I think that even human inputs + short summary of the first draft + short summary of the changes made for each subsequent iteration will be significantly shorter than the whole thing.

In the context of discerning the author's social commentary intentions, both the initial prompt and the entire conversation they have correcting things would indeed be more valuable than just the output text.