There is a huge difference between using an llm and just blindly dumping it's output on someone verbatim.

I think it's fine to have an llm write a first or second draft of something, then go through and reword most of it to be in your own voice.

Using LLM is perfect for writing documentation which is something I always had problems with it.

> If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.

Apply this argument to code, to art, to law, to medicine.

It fails spectacularly.

Blaming the tool for the failure of the person is how you get outrageous arguments that photography cant be art, that use of photoshop makes it not art...

Do you blame the hammer or the nail gun when the house falls down, or is it the fault of the person who built it?

If you dont know what you're doing, it isnt the tools fault.

I disagree with the downvotes, but let me put it differently: if you don’t understand, have reviewed and be ready to own all of LLM output (the thoughtful part), then you aren’t owned the time to read them. If you didn’t try to reign in the verbose slop that’s the default for LLMs, I don’t want to read it.

Maybe the poster is running a local LLM.. you’d think that a SOTA model would have surmised that an overnight MacOS upgrade can only be a minor version.

[flagged]

That's very elitist and unfair to people who previously struggled to form their words but now have a better chance at doing so.