alt Hacker NewsObjectively true statements don't depend on any human understanding them for being true. So it doesn't matter who acts as their messenger.
You conflate two disparate things there: you as the reader understand something as a human. Who wrote it plays no role for the true content. Expressions of human sentiment are another thing entirely.
When LLMs are used to astroturf and manipulate human community building, they rely on such sentiment to stir emotional reactions. Without a rational, objectively true, basis to stand on, that remains sterile if people value truth.
The problem we currently see comes from people foregoing that rooting in objective truth entirely. They act on pure sentiment and are prone to automatic manipulation by it.
You seem to be externalizing the cost of verifying that a thing is true. The cost is nontrivial.
Consider for a moment that all of science is, in some way or another, the search for truth. I have a hard time seeing that any one person—or even any one person with an amazing computer program—can substitute for generations of humans trying to achieve that goal. It is extremely difficult to know what is objectively true.