it's not that it might help or not, it's more like,

"if an AI wrote this, that means I can generate the exact same text (or better) myself, and be _even more_ helped, whenever I'm interested in this topic, by using AI"

having a blog full of ai content is like having a web page that's a list of links to searches for random keywords on google: what's your contribution? picking a topic? is that anything?

That's only if you assume the human didn't have any control over what the AI wrote, and I think that's more and more a very wrong assumption. It's easy to have a lot of control over LLM output, and to use expertise to steer it (non experts steer the LLM in very different directions compared to experts). And the output being raw text, it's also very easy to edit and refactor it to say what needs to be said. Some people are even (unconsciously or not) adopting AI colloquialisms in their own writing. I think it's becoming very unclear where human and AI content begins and ends.

> having a blog full of ai content is like having a web page that's a list of links to searches for random keywords on google

What's any blog? A person just presses a bunch of buttons on a keyboard, is that anything?

I think you dramatically overstate the human contribution, but if it exists, it would be seen by the author sharing their prompts. I can see how that might prove embarrassing, though, if their contribution is minimal, so I can see why so few people do it.

> What's any blog? A person just presses a bunch of buttons on a keyboard, is that anything?

If it's a human writing it, sure: it's a unique contribution by somebody who put forth effort to help others.

If it's just LLM output, then you might as well have a blog posting the results of random math equations from your calculator. Was any significant human effort involved? Odds are no, but "authors" using LLMs are free to prove otherwise by providing their prompts.