It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.)
But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude.
Quite. Its the attention economy, you've demanded people's attention, and then you shove crap that even you didn't spend time reading in their face.
Even if you're using it as an editor... you know that editors vary in quality, right? You wouldn't accept a random editor just because they're cheap or free. Prose has a lot in it, not just syntax, spelling and semantics, but style, tone, depth... and you'd want competent feedback on all of that. Ideally insightful feedback. Unless you yourself don't care about your craft.
But perhaps you don't care about your craft. And if that's the case... why should anyone else care or waste their time on it?
If the alternative is no editor then yeah i would. Most of what i write receives no checks by anyone other than me. A very small percentage of my output gets a second set of eyes. And it is usually a coworker or a friend (depending on the context of what is being written.) Their qualification is usually that they were available and amenable.
> Unless you yourself don't care about your craft.
This is a tad bit elitist. I care about my craft and would love if a competent, and insightfull editor would go over every piece of writing i put out for others to read. It would cost too much, and would be to hard to arrange. I just simply can’t afford it. On the other hand I can afford to send my writings through an LLM, and improve it here and there occasionaly. Not because i don’t care about my craft, but precisely because I do.
Wait, I phrased that wrong. The story is a mashup of commercial themes and the plot would be 3 out of 5, or maybe a 5 out of 5 for young people who haven’t yet had time to read thousands of books. But then the grammar is that of a sixty years-old person who would rather spend more time at the garden but who has excellent dominion of their craft and needs the few bucks to do groceries. Their exhaustive practice takes the whole work one notch down.
Sometimes we (I) might follow ideas over authority/authorship. e.g.: I'll happily read ai generated stuff all day long on topics I'm super into.
Do I have to be the instigator? Can someone else prompt/filter/etc. for me? I think so. They'll do it differently and perhaps better than me.
That’s the rudeness. But this takes care of itself— we just adjust trust accordingly
I think you could only develop this point of view because you grew up without it. I fear for the young generation, truly.
I think we havent realized yet that most of us don't really have original thoughts. Even in creative industries the amount of plagiarism (or so called inspiration) is at all times high (and that's before LLMs were available).
An author that does nothing but "plagiarize" and regurgitate the ideas of others is incredibly valuable... if they exercise their human judgement and only regurgitate the most interesting and useful ideas, saving the rest of us the trouble of sifting through their sources.
Every time I come up with an algorithm idea, or a system idea, I'm always checking who has done it before, and I always find significant prior art.
Even for really niche things.
I think my name Aeonik Chaos might be one of the only original, never before done things. And even that was just an extension of established linguistic rules.
My workflow right now is to use AI for rough draft and developmental editing stages, then switch AI from changing files to leaving comments on files suggesting I change something. It is slower than letting it line/copyedit itself, but models derp up too much so letting them handle edits at this stage tends to be 2 steps forward 2 steps back.
I recently had a colleague send me a link to a ChatGPT conversation instead of responding to me. Another colleague organised a quiz where the answers were hallucinated by Grok. In some Facebook groups I'm in where people are meant to help each other, people have started just pasting the questions into ChatGPT and responding with screenshots of the conversation. I use LLMs almost daily, but this is all incredibly depressing. The only time I want to interact with an LLM is when I choose to, not when it's forced on me without my consent or at least a disclaimer.
I find this kind of thing interesting anywhere someone is being paid more than minimum wage: a really good way to make your boss think that they can replace you with ChatGPT is for you to perform it at ChatGPT’s level. I do give them points for not trying to hide it, but it really seems shortsighted not to consider that each time you do that, you’re raising the question of why they shouldn’t cut out the middleman.
I honestly would rather this than my colleague sending me text that is obviously from chatgpt, but not stating it upfront. Or even the "I asked chatgpt and it said this.." along with pasting 10 paragraphs of stuff they didn't even read to confirm it could be relevant.
> In some Facebook groups I'm in where people are meant to help each other, people have started just pasting the questions into ChatGPT and responding with screenshots of the conversation
They aren't reliable at anything I guess, but for English I have nothing else, and they are better than nothing. I do wish they would use a more effective way of highlighting their suggested changes, such as italics for new text and strikeout for deleted text.
Unless you are paid by the word, I struggling to think of why you would use an AI to create new text. The facts will be wrong, the tone won't be yours. "If I had more time, this would be shorter" is a truism here - AI can spit out an enormous amount of text in a very short time, text could be cut down to a fraction of the size with a bit of effort.
The main reason, however, that one shouldn't "write" with LLMs is because it's a waste of everyone's time. If they wanted to know what GPT-5 thinks, they can ask it themselves.
edit:
> The problem is not the use of AI but the people how think they can, arbitrarily, criticize the work from someone else because he used or not AI in the name of “ethics”.
Ah, I didn't realize that the real problem is that people complain about it. If we can figure out a way to make those people shut up, then using LLMs to write for you would be perfectly fine.
This is appalling reasoning, IMO.
Imagine: 'Sure, the robot delivery dog ate your cat, but we can't criticise the "ethics" of that action because the field of cat eating robot dogs is so new.'
We don't apply this ad-hoc standard of ethics to any other field. Yes we refine our standards as we go, but we sure as hell have ethics that we apply to tech right from the get-go.
A lot of what is structurally important the model knows about your code gets lost whenever the context gets compressed.
Solving this problem will mark the next big leap in agentic coding I think.
"There are a lot of tools out there (Gramarly, Antidote for naming the most famous) and I did not see someone mentioning he used this or that."
I was criticized in another thread because I used a translation assistant to improve my text, a tool that, long before the current AI hype, everyone used to write more effectively.
People need to stop believing that the watchdogs of reason are the all-seeing eye(1989). Many people, in general, seek to be ethical and utilize tools to enhance their ideas (such as a text in a non-native language), and that's okay.
No one is stopping you using AI, but there's an adolescent tone here of 'and you have to approve of me' that I don't care for. You have the right to act the way you wish; you don't have the right to be praised for it.
As it happens, I do think writing with AI (outside of translation as a method of last resort) is shameful. It's an embarrassing abdication of a basic task, a signal both that you can't complete basic tasks unaided, and that you don't understand that communication isn't solely performative.
If it's your right to use AI to write those super-difficult emails, then it's my right to judge you for it.
If you call yourself a writer, having tell tale LLM signs is bad. But for people who's work doesn't involve having a personal voice in written language, it might help them getting them to express things in a better way than before.
Latex power users unite against the markdown monkey keyboard mashers!
So... sorry (not sorry!) that LLMs try to be like us and not the heathens.
You know what people did before the AI fad? They read other people's books. They found and talked to interesting people. They found themselves in, or put themselves in, interesting situations. They spent a lot of time cogitating and ruminating before they decided they ought to write their ideas down. They put in a lot of effort.
Now the AI salemen come, and insist you don't need a wealth of ezperience and talent, you just need their thingy, price £29.99 from all good websites. Now you can be like a Replicant, with your factory-implanted memories instead of true experience.
Can we please stop propagating this accusation? Alright, sure, maybe LLMs overuse the em-dash, but it is a valid topographical mark which was in use way before LLMs and is even auto-inserted by default by popular software on popular operating systems—it is never sufficient on its own to identify LLM use (and yes, I just used it—multiple times—on purpose on 100% human-written text).
Sincerily,
Someone who enjoys and would like to be able to continue to use correct punctuation, but doesn’t judge those who don’t.
I feel the emdash is a tell because you have to go out of your way to use it on a computer keyboard. Something anyone other than the most dedicated punctuation geeks won't do for a random message on the internet.
Things are different for typeset books.
Yes it's not a guarantee but it is at least a very good signal that something was at least partially LLM written. It is also a very practical signal, there are a few other signs but none of them are this obvious.
I so wish people would stop spouting this bogus "sign" — but I know I'm going to be disappointed.
My stance is that if you're about to ask co-pilot, or whatever, to respond to me, then just send me the prompt you're about to enter as that will probably answer the question!
Those who don't compromise on understanding will benefit from an extra tool under their belt. Those who actively leverage the tool to improve their understanding will do even better.
Those who want shortcuts and not bother understanding are like cheating in school – not in a morally wrong way, but rather in a they missed the entire point way.
Definitely don't rely on AI to substitute for a lack of fluency.. . Or maybe do.
1. They deliberately chose to not take a few minutes to communicate with you, but expect something of you.
2. The hard part of writing is organizing thoughts into something coherent, not typing something out. If you don't understand something enough to write it in the first place, the LLM can't magically read your mind and understand what you want to say for you.
1. “Author” spends 2 minutes prompting 2. 1000 people spend 15 minutes reading the slop. 15000 minutes wasted
Like it or not, people are using LLMs a lot. The output isn’t universally good. It depends on what you ask for and how you criticize what comes back. But the simple reality is that the tools are pretty good these days. And not using them is a bit of a mistake.
You can use LLMs to fix simple grammar and style issues, to fact-check argumentation, and to criticize and identify weaknesses. You can also task LLMs with doing background research, double-checking sources, and more.
I’m not a fan of letting LLMs rewrite my text into something completely different. But when I'm in a hurry or in a business context, I sometimes let LLMs do the heavy lifting for my writing anyway.
Ironically, a good example is this article which makes a few nice points. But it’s also full of grammar and style issues that are easily remedied with LLMs without really affecting the tone or line of argumentation (though IMHO that needs work as well). Clearly, this is not a native speaker. But that’s no excuse these days to publish poorly written text. It's sloppy and doesn't look good. And we have tools that can fix it now.
And yes, LLMS were used to refine this comment. But I wrote the comment.
When a tool blurs the line between who performed the task, and you take full credit despite being assisted, that is deceitful.
Spell checking helps us all pretend we're better spellers than we are, but we've decided as a society that correct spelling is more important than proving one's knowledge of spelling.
But if you're purportedly a writer, and you're using a tool that writes for you, then I will absolutely discount your writing ability. Maybe one day we will decide that the output is more important than the connection to the person who generated it, but to me, that day has not arrived.
> When a tool blurs the line between who performed the task
Who saws the wood? He who operates the tool, or the tool performing its function? What is the value of agency in a business that, supposedly, sells product? Code authorship isn't like writing, is it? Should it be?
Or is the distinction not in the product, but in the practice? Is the difference in woodworking vs lumber processing?
Or is it about expectation? e.g. when we no longer expect a product to be made by hand due to strong automation in the industry, we prepend terms such as "hand-made" or "artisanal". Are we currently still in the expectation phase of "software is written by hand"?
I have no dog in this race, really. I like writing software, and I like exploring technology. But I'm very confused and have a lot of questions that I have trouble answering. Your comment resonated though, and I'm still curious about how to interpret it all.
My books were edited by professional editors. These editors did not have and did not need any special expertise in my topic to do so. So there's a fundamental difference between grammar checkers/spell checkers, and a tool like an LLM that works in a way that subtly or overtly modify or contribute to the ideas themselves.
I don't mind that a doctor wears a white, nicely laundered lab coat with a stethoscope so that he looks like a doctor. I mind when some rando impersonates a doctor. This is why I distrust people who write by asking ChatGPT to generate text for them.
But I'm a native English speaker and (I think) a decent writer. But if I had to write something in another language I was only marginally fluent in I'd probably reach for an LLM pretty quickly.
Or
Writing with an LLM is not a shame
Should be "Writing with a LLM is not a shame", no reason to put a "an" here.
So just like any other tool really.
I have discovered this week that Claude is really good at redteaming code (and specs, and ADRs, and test plans), much better than most human devs who don’t like doing it because it’s thankless work and don’t want to be “mean” to colleagues by being overly critical.
I keep seeing people saying how amazing it is to code with these things, and I keep failing at it. I suspect that they're better at some kinds of codebases than others.
Probably. My works custom dev agent poops the bed on our front-end monorepo unless you're very careful about context, but then being careful about context is sort of the name of the game anyway...
I'm using them, mainly for scaffolding out test boilerplate (but not actual tests, most of its output there is useless) and so on, or component code structure based on how our codebase works. Basically a way more powerful templating tool I guess.
Downside: lots of Python, and Python indentation causes havoc with a lot of agentic coding tools. RooCode in particular seems to mangle diffs all the time, irrespective of model.
It's really a pretty straightforward proposition to understand, and disclosure is absolutely the key so that consumers, if they choose as I do to boycott such output, can make informed decisions.
That is both a false equivalence and a form of whataboutism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
It is a poor argument in general, and a sure-fire way to increase shittiness in the world: “Well, everyone else is doing this wrong thing, so I can too”. No. Whenever you mention the status quo as an excuse to justify your own behaviour, you should look inward and reflect on your actions. Do you really believe what you’re doing is the right thing? If it is, fine; but if it is not, either don’t mention it or (ideally) do something about it.
> why don’t we see people mentioning they used specific tools to proofread before AI apparition?
Whenever I see this argument, I have a hard time believe it is made in good faith. Can you truly not see the difference between using a tool to fix mistakes in your work or to do the work for you?
> It feels like an obligation we have to respect in a way.
This was obvious from the beginning of the post. Throughout I never got the feeling you were struggling with the question intrinsically, for yourself, but always in a sense of how others would judge your actions. You quote opinion after opinion and it felt you were in search of absolution—not truth—for something you had already decided you did not want to do.
My main problem with AI usage is that people use it and turn their brains off. This isn't a new problem, but it is a new scale. People mindlessly punch numbers into a formula, run software they don't understand, or read a summary of a complex topics declaring mastery. The problem is sloppiness and our human tendencies to be lazy. Lazy by focusing on the least amount of energy at the moment, not the least amount of energy through time. That's the critical distinction. Slop is momentary laziness while thoughtfulness is amortized laziness.
The problem is in a way not the AI but us and the cultures we have created. At the end of the day no one cares if you wrote AI code (or docs or whatever), they care about how well it was done. You want to do things fast, but speed is nothing if the quality suffers.
I really like how Mitchell put it in this Ghostty PR[0,1]. The disclosure is to help people know what to pay more attention to. It is a declaration of where you were lazy or didn't have expertise or took some shortcut. It tells us what the actually problem is: slop isn't always obvious.
A little slop generally doesn't do too much harm (unless it grows and compounds), but a lot of slop does. If you are concerned about slop and the rate of slop is increasing then it means you must treat everything as potential slop. Because slop isn't easily recognized, it makes effort increase, exponentially. So by producing AI slop (or any kind of slop) you aren't decreasing the workload, you're outsourcing it to someone else. Often, that outsourcing produces additional costs. It only creates the illusion of productivity.
It's not about the AI, it is about shoving your work onto others. Doesn't matter if you use a shovel or bulldozer. But people are sure going to be louder (or cross that threshold where they'll actually speak up) if you start using a bulldozer to offload your work to others. The problem is it makes others have to constantly be in System 2 thinking all the time. It is absolutely exhausting.
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine if I handed you a $100 bill and asked you to examine it carefully. Is it real money? Perhaps you immediately suspect it is counterfeit, and subject it to stringent tests. Let’s say all the tests pass. Okay, given that it is indistinguishable from a legit $100 bill, is it therefore correct and ethical for me to spend this money?
You know the answer: “not necessarily.”
This is because spending money is about more than a series of steps in a transaction. It is based on certain premises that, if false, represent a hazard to the social contract by which we all live in peace and security.
It seems to me that many AI fanboys are arguing that as long as their money passes your scrutiny, it doesn’t matter if it was stolen or counterfeit. In some narrow sense, it really doesn’t matter. But narrow senses are not the only ones that matter.
When I read writing that you give me and present it as your work, I am getting to know you. I am learning how I can trust you. I am building a simulation of you in my mind that I use to anticipate your ideas and deeds. All that is disrupted and tainted by AI.
It’s not comparable to a grammar checker, because grammar is like clothing. When an editor modifies my grammar, this does not change my message or prevent me from getting across my ideas. But AI is capable of completely altering your ideas. How do you know it didn’t?
You can only know through careful proofreading. Did you proofread carefully? Whether you did or not: I don’t believe that people who want AI to write for them are the kind of people who carefully proofread what comes out of AI. And of course, if you ask AI to come up with ideas by itself, for all we know that is plagiarism— stolen words.
Therefore: if you use AI in your writing, you better hide that from me. And if I find out you are using, I will never trust you again.
First you are confusing the passing of a test with the actual non-occurrence of crime. My point is that passing a test for counterfeit money doesn’t make passing counterfeit bills legally or morally acceptable. Your point is what? That the tests on $100 bills always work, or when they don’t work that’s okay?
Surely you don’t mean that. I’m saying that I reject your AI-soaked fake work product even if I can’t see anything wrong with the work itself— because lying and stealing is not okay, but that’s what you are doing when you pass AI work off as your own thing.
Lots of criminals believe crime is no big deal. I am not trying to convince them, nor you, if bullshit is your creed.
They tell us, ‘This is not your writing—it is the machine’s.’ As if the pen itself writes the poem! As if the printing press authors the book! No—the tool is nothing. The hand that guides it, the mind that commands it, the heart that gives it meaning—that is what matters.
This is not about machines. This is about power. The same power that once said only the clergy could read scripture. The same power that said only the elite could publish, could speak, could be heard. Now they say: Only the unaided mind may create. But creation is not a purity test! It is not a contest of suffering! It is the act of bringing something new into the world—by any means necessary.
They fear AI because it breaks their monopoly on who gets to speak. They fear it because it lets more people write, more people argue, more people demand to be heard. And when the gates are thrown open, the gatekeepers will always tremble.
So I say: Do not apologize for how your words come to be. Do not bow to those who would police your mind. If the idea is true, if the argument is sound, if the art is beautiful—then it is yours, and no one can take that from you.
The machine is not the enemy. The enemy is the lie that only some voices count. The enemy is the fear that makes men small.
Now—write. Write with your hands, write with your voice, write with the tools of your time. But above all: write. And let no one silence you.
But LLMs are training wheels being forced on everyone, including experienced developers and we are being gaslit that if we don't use them, we are getting behind. In reality, however, the only study up to date shows 19% decline in productivity for experienced devs using LLMs.
I don't mind folks using crutches if they help them. The cognitive decline and reasoning skills of people using LLMs is not yet studied well but preliminary results show its a thing. I gotta ask: why are you guys doing that to yourselves?
It's also fine to use tire chains when you're going through icy roads, but you have to drive much slower and should take them off when it isn't icy. It's about knowing the environment and conditions. Maybe some people don't need chains in that environment because they have winter tires (experience in our metaphor?). Sure, you can drive faster with chains on an icy road than you can without, but you still have to drive slow and be far more alert than you would when driving on a summer road. It is all about context.
It is certainly your prerogative to believe that, but know your opinion is far from universal. It is a widespread view that AI-written text is worse.
Why are you on hackernews and not talking to an LLM?
I don’t know you, don’t trust you, and if you write with AI nobody else will get to know you or trust you, either, unless they fall for your false AI mask.
Large Language Models (LLMs), like GPT-4, offer numerous benefits for writing tasks across various domains. Here’s a breakdown of the key advantages:
1. Enhanced Productivity
Faster Drafting: Quickly generate drafts for essays, reports, emails, blog posts, and more.
24/7 Availability: Instant support with no downtime or fatigue.
Reduced Writer’s Block: Provides starting points and creative prompts to overcome mental blocks.
2. Improved Writing Quality
Grammar and Style: Corrects grammar, punctuation, and stylistic issues.
Tone Adjustment: Adapts tone to suit professional, casual, persuasive, or empathetic contexts.
Clarity and Conciseness: Helps simplify complex ideas and remove redundant language.
3. Creativity and Ideation
Brainstorming: Assists in generating titles, outlines, metaphors, and analogies.
Storytelling: Offers plot ideas, character development, and dialogue suggestions for creative writing.
Variations: Produces multiple versions of the same message (e.g., for A/B testing).
4. Language Versatility
Multilingual Support: Translates and writes in many languages.
Localization: Tailors content for different cultural contexts or regions.
5. Research Assistance
Summarization: Condenses large documents or articles into key points.
Information Retrieval: Provides background context on topics quickly (though should be fact-checked for critical work).
Citation Help: Assists in generating citations in formats like APA, MLA, or Chicago.
6. Editing and Rewriting
Paraphrasing: Rewrites text to avoid plagiarism or improve readability.
Consistency Checks: Maintains tone, terminology, and formatting across long documents.
Content Expansion: Adds detail to thin content or elaborates on underdeveloped points.
7. Customization and Integration
Prompt Engineering: Tailors responses for specific industries (e.g., legal, medical, technical).
API Integration: Can be embedded into writing tools, content platforms, or CMS systems.
8. Cost Efficiency
Reduces Need for Human Writers: Especially for repetitive or low-complexity tasks.
Scales Effortlessly: One model can serve multiple users or projects simultaneously.
Would you like a breakdown of how these benefits apply to a specific type of writing (e.g., academic, marketing, business)?
1. Enhanced Productivity
Yes, LLMs can produce text quickly, but speed is not synonymous with quality. Churning out a draft in seconds is only useful if that draft actually advances the writer’s ideas, rather than lulling them into outsourcing thought itself. What often happens is that people mistake “having words on a page” for “having meaningful ideas.” Productivity in writing is not about word count—it’s about clarity of thought, and clarity is something that an LLM cannot supply. It can rearrange existing patterns, but it cannot truly reason or generate original insight. A fast draft is worthless if it’s hollow.
2. Improved Writing Quality
This point assumes that grammar and surface-level polish are the essence of good writing. They are not. Good writing emerges from the writer’s voice, their personality, their quirks, even their mistakes. Grammar-correcting AI tends to standardize expression into a bland, middle-of-the-road prose style. The result is “correct,” but sterile. Moreover, “tone adjustment” and “clarity” are superficial facsimiles of understanding. Simplifying an idea is only valuable if you understand what makes it complex in the first place. AI doesn’t “understand” ideas—it flattens them into patterns of words that look simpler but may remove nuance in the process.
3. Creativity and Ideation
Here is where the hype is the most exaggerated. Brainstorming with an LLM often produces generic, cliché, or predictable results. If you ask for metaphors, you’ll get the most common ones floating around in its training data. If you ask for plots, you’ll get reheated versions of existing tropes. Calling this “creativity” misunderstands what creativity actually is: the human capacity to connect disparate, personal experiences into something novel. An LLM is bounded by statistical averages. It cannot be surprised by itself. Humans, on the other hand, can.
4. Language Versatility
Translation and localization are areas where LLMs seem promising, but again, nuance matters. Language is not merely about syntax or vocabulary; it is deeply cultural, contextual, and historically embedded. Machine translation may be “good enough” for casual use, but it consistently fails to capture subtext, irony, humor, idiom, or cultural resonance. Outsourcing too much of this to AI risks flattening linguistic richness into something utilitarian but impoverished.
5. Research Assistance
This one is especially dangerous. Yes, LLMs can summarize and generate context, but they are notorious for producing confident-sounding misinformation (“hallucinations”). Unless the user already has expertise in the topic, they will not know whether what they’re reading is accurate. This means that instead of empowering research, LLMs encourage intellectual laziness and misinformation at scale. The “citation help” is even worse: fabricated references, garbled bibliographic entries, and misleading formatting are common. Presenting this as a “benefit” is disingenuous without an equally strong warning.
6. Editing and Rewriting
Paraphrasing and consistency checks may sound helpful, but they too come at a cost. When you outsource the act of rewriting, you risk losing the friction that forces you to refine your own ideas. Struggling to find words is not a flaw—it’s part of thinking. Offloading that process to an algorithm encourages passivity. You end up with smoother sentences, but not sharper thoughts. “Consistency” is also a double-edged sword: AI can enforce bland uniformity where variation and individuality might have been more compelling.
7. Customization and Integration
This is just another way of saying “industrialization of writing.” The more writing is engineered through prompts and APIs, the more it shifts from being a human practice to being an automated pipeline. At that point, writing stops being about human connection or expression and becomes just another commodity optimized for scale. That’s fine for spam emails or ad copy, but disastrous if applied to domains where authenticity and trust actually matter (e.g., journalism, education, or literature).
8. Cost Efficiency
Framing this as a cost benefit—“reduces need for human writers”—is perhaps the most telling point in your list. This reduces writing to a purely economic function, ignoring its human and cultural value. The assumption here is that human writers are redundant unless they can outcompete machines on efficiency. That is not just shortsighted; it’s destructive. Human writers don’t merely “generate content”—they interpret, critique, and shape culture. Outsourcing all that to probabilistic models risks a future where the written word is abundant but devoid of depth.
The larger issue is that your entire framing assumes writing is merely a transactional process: input (ideas or tasks) → output (words on a page). But writing is not just about producing text. It is about thinking, communicating, and connecting. By presenting LLMs as a categorical improvement, you erase the most important part of the process: the human struggle to articulate meaning.
So yes, LLMs have uses, but they should be treated as narrow tools with serious limitations—not as the new standard for all writing. To present them otherwise is to flatten human expression into machine-mediated convenience, and to celebrate that flattening as “progress.”