[cbg0]

So are we saying it's fine that the article is written by an LLM as long as it doesn't have the tell-tale signs of LLMs?

[ramon156]

It's more about curating the things you're publishing. Why would I bother reading what you couldn't bother to read?

[alienbaby]

They could easily have read it, and thought , that communicates the information that it needs to.

No point creating busywork for yourself just shuffling words around when the information is there, no?

I guess it depends on what you want out of the article. Substance, or style?

[lelanthran]

> They could easily have read it, and thought , that communicates the information that it needs to.

I'd they aren't self-aware enough or smart enough to determine that what they wrote is indistinguishable from text generation, how probable is it that they have something of value to add to any thought?

[100ms]

I don't really see reason to complain about tool use, so long as the result is cohesive, accurate and that ultimately means a human has at least read their own output before publishing. It's a bit like receiving a supposedly personal letter that starts "Dear [INSERT_FIRST_NAME_FIELD]," are you really going to read such a thing?

[HighGoldstein]

An article without telltale signs of an LLM is indistinguishable from an article written by a human, so yes.

[spicyusername]

My opinion is that literature and art will continue pushing the envelope in the places they always pushed the envelope. LLMs will not change this, humans love making art, and they love doing it in new ways.

Corporate announcements were never the places that literature and art were pushing the envelope. They were slop before, and they're slop now.