apart from the whole litany of benefits of writing for yourself (and the inherent issues with handing the production of nonliberal theory over to nonthinking LLMs trained on liberal texts), the problem with using LLMs for writing is that it is a black box through which no one can determine your writing process. i.e. when the output is obviously AI-generated, no one can determine the extent to which you used AI in your process, only that you used it at least some: did you use it to simply polish a few sentences? did you use it to create whole elaborative sentences? did you use it to create the entire structure of the piece? worst of all, did you use it to create entire points of your argument?

you can’t blame anyone for questioning the authenticity of your writing when it isn’t entirely your writing. if you care enough about the contents therein you should care enough to take the extra time to actually write it yourself. otherwise, yeah, i don’t think the contents deserve to be responded to. and, after all, this question is directly related to what LLMs are “actually for”

ultimately no digital tools can replace good old OPSEC

wow, that’s some wild shit. it’s almost hard for me to believe that i used to look up to this guy as a kid

good! i don’t think i could imagine a better outcome

it’s hard for me not to get the last word too (i feel like bourgeois social media really incentivizes this), but yeah the best thing to do here is obviously to just not engage. there’s no point in arguing/debating with someone if you don’t have enough points of unity to actually synthesize both of your viewpoints and come to some sort of an agreement.