What I notice quite often is a sort of "LLM derangement syndrome" where people start flagging the most innocuous figures of speech and speech pattern as "clearly LLM".

Quite ironic when we are talking about an article which argues for extending the benefit of the doubt.

Thing is, it might be or it might not be. At some point you have to realize that some people need wheelchairs to move, some people need glasses to see, and some people need LLMs to write.

IMHO It's when you see someone who is paid to write/think using LLMs that you might make a value judgement.

I once knew a girl who wore prescription-free glasses b/c it made her feel smarter so she'd study longer. Not kidding. I made a value judgement about that. But she got the studying done. There's been other more prevalent cases of that on socials.

It might be worth letting some people write in any way they can.

Plaease don't spoil threads with comments like this. The writing doesn't come up as LLM-authored according to the tools we use (polished, perhaps, but not generated).

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49858463 and marked it off topic.

Everything is LLM if you want it to be

Who cares? She isn't a public figure, and she never asked to be. She has some thoughts she wants to put out there after going viral due to nothing she did.

i suspect in some time people might begin to flag every bit of text they see online as "LLM sounding", even if it's very clearly not