Comment by recipe19
8 months ago
I disagree. The most obvious message this telegraphs is "I don't respect you or your argument enough to parse it and articulate a response, why don't you argue with a machine instead". That's rude.
There is an alternative interpretation - "the LLM put it so much better than I ever could, so I copied and pasted that" - but precisely because of the ambiguity, you don't want to be sneaky about it. If you want me to have a look at what the LLM said, make it clear.
A meta-consideration here is that there is just an asymmetry of effort when I'm trying to formulate arguments "manually" and you're using an LLM to debate them. On some level, it might be fair game. On another, it's pretty short-sighted: the end game is that we both use LLMs that endlessly debate each other while drifting off into the absurd.
Point taken. I wouldn't want to argue with someone's LLM. I guess I'm an outlier in that I would never post LLM output as my own. I write, then I sometimes have an LLM check it because it points out where people might be confused or misinterpret certain phrases.
Edit: I'm 67 so ChatGPT is especially helpful in pointing out where my possible unconscious dinosaur attitudes may be offensive to Millennials and Gen Z.