|
Yeah, in a small way I agree with the post, but agree with you as well. For me: human authorship is a pretty solid gate, because the vast majority of people are not doing the work described in the post’s hypothetical “argue through 6 drafts and iterations, wholesale rearrangement, critically considering the content, adjusting further”. I don’t exactly care about whether or not the actual bits on my screen came directly from a human’s fingers on a keyboard or from an LLM, but I do care about whether or not the material is good, well-written, appropriately concise (which varies both on the content and the audience), fact-checked, and I’m sure a bunch more factors. Some humans fail at these criteria as well. Human authorship is an imperfect proxy for quality, but saying it’s imperfect doesn’t mean that it’s worthless… quite the opposite, I’d argue. Even if there are flaws in the writing, it at least shows that the author tried, which I do personally put value on. Copy & pasting Claude output without even fact-checking… that’s inherently low effort and if that’s what I wanted to read, I’d just ask Claude myself. I use LLMs in my workflow to varying degrees depending on the task, but their output never makes it into the wild without serious scrutiny. Sometimes their code is better than what I’d have written, which is great. Sometimes it completely misses the point and needs significant re-steering several times, to the point where it’s easier if I write it myself. For writing, I’ll happily have an LLM harness put together a document explaining a dataflow through a complex system; I ask it to include source filenames and line numbers and can do my own validation before accepting it as truth. |