> That is precisely the observation we're not seeing.
What is the basis for this claim? To me, my formulation reads as logically self evident, to the point of near tautology. Your claim is what? People who genuinely care about things are delegating those things to LLMs? Then in what sense do they actually "care" about them?
You said: "if a human cares, a human will author." That statement was somewhat ambiguous, and I interpreted that in such a way that the first human (the consumer) is different from the second (producer). Perhaps that's not what you meant.
I also think, respectfully, that you're overindexing on LinkedIn. I was using it as an example to illustrate a point. My primary concern is with teams I work with day to day, and to a much lesser extent, AI-written blog posts being featured here on HN.
I'm not sure where the lack of clarity on my part came in. I think at this juncture it is best to thank you for the back and forth and wish you a good day. I will just also suggest debates at work should be settled at work.
Thanks! I appreciated it.
Edit: I see what you mean. In my formulation the "human" in question was one and the same. Perhaps this clarification makes my point more intelligible. Thanks again!
What is the basis for this claim? To me, my formulation reads as logically self evident, to the point of near tautology. Your claim is what? People who genuinely care about things are delegating those things to LLMs? Then in what sense do they actually "care" about them?