[capyba]

This is my thought, exactly. Reading has always been a contract between the person who wrote the text and the person who’s reading it: “these are my thoughts, recorded to share with you.” When reading LLM-generated text that purports to be a real person’s that contract is broken. Verification that even just the basic ideas are the author’s is impossible. It feels cheap and deceitful.

[infinite_spin]

> Reading has always been a contract between the person who wrote the text and the person who’s reading it

I don't think an author is bound to their readers via contract, implicit or otherwise. I have no obligation to tell people what tools I use, or how I've arrived at a final product. That might be upsetting to hear, but authors don't owe their readers anything, just as readers don't owe authors anything.

There is a precedent for this, many auto biographies are actually ghostwritten, demonstrating that this contract you speak of has never actually existed.

[pseudalopex]

Ghost writing is fraud.

[infinite_spin]

I don't think a single ghostwriter has ever been convicted of fraud for writing an auto biography on behalf of another person. Do you have some evidence to back this claim or am I expected to take your word for it?