Respects maintainers time: DSFG uses LLM to automate reviews. A human reviewer reads the LLM report, the submission, and replies with the review.

Does not respect the maintainer's time: DSFG uses an LLM to automate reviews. It auto-replies to submissions. There is an appeal process to theoretically handle errors.

The crux of polite LLM use is on whom the burden of the flood of generated output falls.

If you are the consumer of your automated output, all good. Say you generate a report and read it, the burden of inaccuracy or verbose output generated in seconds falls on you. Not only does this avoid wasting other people's time, you have the power to go fix the tool to stop wasting yours.

If the output goes directly to others, the burden of correcting inaccuracy falls on them. The burden of reading it falls on them. And they usually then have to scale some wall of automation to reach a human and convince them to fix it. Users subjected to this will be rightly pissed off.