[dw_arthur]

I assume if someone used an LLM to write for them that they must not be comfortabley familiar with their subject. Writing about something you know well tends to come easy and usually is enjoyable. Why would you use an LLM for that and how could you be okay with its output?

[NathanielK]

Writing a first draft may come easy, but there's more to the process than that. An LLM can go from outline to "article" in one step. I can't.

I don't write often, so revising and rewriting is very slow for me. I'm not confident in my writing and it looks clunky to my eye.

I see the appeal, though I want to keep developing my own skills.

[AlecSchueler]

> An LLM can go from outline to "article" in one step. I can't.

But the point is that the results tend to be very grating.

> I'm not confident in my writing and it looks clunky to my eye.

AI writing is clunky!

> I don't write often, so revising and rewriting is very slow for me.

This is totally fair, but maybe consider editing the AI output once it's given you a second draft?

[NathanielK]

I agree entirely. Seeing all llm garbage being published made me realize how insecure people are about their writing.

Since realizing, I've been stubbornly improving my own writing and not touching LLMs. Takes a bit of work though.

[chairmansteve]

"maybe consider editing the AI output once it's given you a second draft?".

I would completely rewrite the LLM output. Use it as a researcher or idea generator.

[aleph_minus_one]

> I assume if someone used an LLM to write for them that they must not be comfortabley familiar with their subject.

This statement assumes that the writer is a native speaker in the language in which he writes the text.

[habinero]

If you're not a good enough speaker to write it, you're not good enough to proofread it, either.