alt Hacker NewsI had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.
1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM.
2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship.
3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.
As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.
You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.
> are you disagreeing with them all
Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and people who who think they're doing 'assisted authorship' tend to be mistaken.
I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.