Comment by CPLX

> I feel like the only difference at this point is between people who do that and say that they do, and people who do that and don't say that they do.

No. Did you "clean this up" with an LLM before posting it?

I hate to go there, but how is that argument different from a thief who argues "Everyone steals. The only difference is some of them claim they do, and some claim they don't"?

> I mean, it seems to me like that should be nearly everybody at this point, right? There are at least some elements of using LLMs that are the equivalent of a spell check, like asking to make sure that links work and that references are to the thing they're supposed to be, and so on.

Right. Maybe. The problem is that when material has all the tells of LLM generation, do you expect the reader to figure out if the thoughts were the authors or introduced by the LLM?

The value in a human directly communicating with you is that you understand what they are saying; if they misunderstand, you spot their misunderstanding. If they are talking at cross-purposes, you know you are arguing past each other. If they agree with you, you know they agree with you.

That signal is missing when the communication is LLM generated; you message said "Not X, Not Y, just Z", but I can't tell if you even know what X, Y and Z are. f I ask you to give me a definition for them so I can ensure we aren't talking about different things, the LLM response will be "X is $SOMETHING", but I still can't tell if you think that X is $SOMETHING or if you still think that X is $SOMETHING_ELSE while your LLM and I agree that X is $SOMETHING.

Communication from a person tells us something about that person, outside of the message being communicated. If that communication is relayed via an non-invested third party, the missing signal prevents any communication.