[sdsdffsddfs]

It's a very interesting issue you raise here. Notice that even if he typed it all out himself we wouldn't be any wiser. Literally nothing would have changed. Using the "I can verify that he performed a lot of work" as a quality signal always was a questionable - albeit understandable - choice but in the LLM-age it's useless.

<super_weird_rant>

I don't think I like it, but I think we are heading towards a situation where all information is filtered, reviewed and validated before it even becomes available to you. We need to do a lot of work to define what "reviewed" and "validated" mean here, but I don't see many ways around it. This would, however, require a vast attitude shift whereby we have some way of proclaiming "facts" and "arguments" tied to "proofs" that can be automated in some fashion, not just for code, but for all communication in general.

Stuff like "X is true in 50% of cases" need to be automatically and transparently tied to some part of a system that supports your claim which itself can be tied to some greater system, etc. If we have UIs that support this cleanly we can inspect the veracity of claims ourselves as so far the validation is feasible/practical/economical. Perhaps some sort of "this claim is true under X,Y conditions"-fingerprint made by some trusted VerificationAgency, a chain of trust so to speak, like our certificate systems. Or perhaps a P2P network of open-source "ClaimVerifiers". If everything is by default written with verification in mind, not just code, but literally everything that needs to be correct, I think that would be quite interesting.

OK, this is super weird so I'll let myself out now.

</super_weird_rant>