[ClikeX]

> "Here is a good explanation from <cite to AI> on how this algorithm works. I have verified that this is accurate", and quote the AIs explanation how is that different from the book case?

I mean this is fine really, as long it's clear to me that you've actually done something with the content. And it's okay when I already know you and know that you actually do the research on the topics the LLM retrieves for you. It's much different when you don't know each other and you just get some generated response. I have no clue if you've digested the information and verified it before giving it to me, or just tossed it over the fence.

The big issue I have with it in this thread is things like blog posts and comments that seem straight up copied from the LLM. At that point the blog seems meaningless to me. It's not the author's work, it's ChatGPT or Claude, so why would I bother reading their prompt's output. I go to a blog for their writing, not the LLM.

Similarly, I go to a concert to hear the artists. I would be very uninterested to a see an empty stage and hearing an AI generated "live version" blasting through the speakers.