[throw310822]

While I understand perfectly the feeling of uneasiness that comes with reading something that was at least contributed by an LLM, my point is that any lack of trust is just on your side until you can prove that the document contains mistakes or omits important information. The person that produced the document is the one responsible for it- they still need to know and review accurately its content.

However there's another aspect that irks me, and it's the idea that the prompt was much shorter than the document itself. Well if this is the case, then the problem isn't much the use of LLMs, but rather that you consider obvious that your documents are mostly fluff that can be compressed to a bullet list. If the final document is much harder to verify than the information it contains then it means that you're wasting time and resources to ofbuscate rather than clarify.

[jvanderbot]

> The person that produced the document is the one responsible for it- they still need to know and review accurately its content.

That's exactly what I'm saying, so we agree perfectly there.

> However there's another aspect that irks me, and it's the idea that the prompt was much shorter than the document itself.

That's not part of my argument, it's an assumption on your part.

> If the final document is much harder to verify than the information it contains ...

This is precisely the problem. LLMs generate far too much text for their information content, and often contain subtle errors etc etc (I dont need to rehash two whole HN threads here, the point is made). If a coworker sent me the bullets, I'd be happier. Because the cost of generating arguments is now effectively zero, it's imperative to use restraint to get back to the concise, high SNR message. Precisely because otherwise it becomes a DDOS on the reader.