[handoflixue]

Anecdotally, LLMs are apparently good enough at writing to routinely make the front page of Hacker News. Twitter has a plague of bot comments. From all these up-votes, we can infer there is an audience and this is good faith.

Partly, I admit, I just tend to be wary of shame as a tool. "Someone said something I dislike" has a long history of being abused. Conversely, even something like your gum example, one can point at concrete harms like littering and forcing others to clean up after you.

[grey-area]

Many people don’t read the articles before upvoting they tend to just read the headline. So I don’t think this proves much.

[21asdffdsa12]

And the "We should shame them!" crowd has a long standing inability to tell fiction and facts apart, even if previously informed. There was this example of a polish writer who killed one of his characters off- and the people held mournings and church services for her.

If you take the scripture for holy, then the holy scripture talking back to you making you a prophet, will condemn other fiction as blasphemy.

[imperfect_blue]

Using LLM as a writing assistant to properly format your ideas, while lazy, is not the same thing as a slop bomb. They're highly rated because the original ideas are good, even if the writing quality is sloppish, and it genuinely contains human input that you can't get simply by asking LLMs a question.

[adastra22]

If the AI has enough editing input that your article comes off stylistically as AI-written, it is lazy and your writing is not as good as you think it is.

[imperfect_blue]

Lazy is not bad, and bad writing doesn't mean it's not valuable or insightful.

[exe34]

Lazy writing is disrespectful. Although nowadays we should assume the entire article is slop unless we have reason to suspect otherwise.