I'm reminded of a passage in Stephen Fry's "The Liar"[1], which draws the distinction between a book as an object of art, and a book as a vehicle for communication. If the message is worthwhile, I don't care if it was blurted out by a model or if blind monks inscribed it by hand into vellum parchment.
Don't get me wrong, there's certainly correlation - if I _know_ you've taken a lot of effort to write something, the chances are good that there is worthwhile content being communicated. But the correlation is _not_ perfect.
[0] when it comes to technical writing that intends to communicate information. Narrative writing that intends to evoke an emotion or viewpoint is a different story!
If an AI auto-outputs something with no sign of final check-off by a human, we don't even know if the intention of the human is to spam 100 different articles and delete 99 based on perceived success, or if the AI actually helped them translate something worth saying.
> The problem is there's no signal for the recipient that the value being delivered aligns with the intention of the human who set the prompting chain into action, right?
We don’t even know what iterations, granted, if any, were performed on the article text before it was published.
Genuine question - is it? Why? If I set out to write a mediocre guide to bicycle maintenance, and through a spectacular series of typos I accidentally write a recipe for a sublime cheesecake, it's still true that I've written a good recipe, even if that wasn't my intent.
(Hopefully we can bypass quibbling about the use of the term "write" in an LLM-assisted context. Readers should feel free to substitute the clunkier phrase "take actions that cause words to be recorded" if they wish)
> It's [...] very difficult to figure out where to "listen"
I don't agree. Or rather, I don't think it's any harder than it has been since the Internet exploded, long before LLMs. It's just based on track record. Read an article; note that it's useful; note the source. See another article by that source; find it useful again; begin to attribute trust to them. Read a less-good article by them; lessen your trust somewhat.
By all means, observe "this person probably didn't edit this after an LLM generated it" and take that as an input to whether you will trust their observations - but you should probably be verifying anything technical that you read anyway. If you consistently observe unhelpful or misleading content from a particular source, you should stop trusting it, regardless of whether that content was human- or AI-generated.
> If an author doesn't try to make "listening" easier, then it puts the value they hold into question if they don't care about it enough themselves.
Again, I don't think that's true. If someone has tweaked and moulded an LLM-content-generation pipeline such that they can generate a piece of technical content that is still genuinely-useful even without a human editing pass to reduce LLM-isms, they're still a useful source. I might justifiably think they're lazy, uninvested, or not an expert in the domain - but it would be foolish to deny the usefulness of their output.
To put it differently - Michael Jordan could wake up hungover and, with one hand behind his back, still kick my ass at basketball. The fact that he's not trying the hardest he could doesn't mean that the scoreboard would be any less valid. Equivalently, caring about the content you create doesn't directly affect the value of what you create (again, I can't stress enough - for technical content only!) - it's probably positively correlated (because it will cause you to take more care), but _not_ a prerequisite.
I don't care if you are having Claude write something for you, but I feel like I spent more time writing these two sentences than this person put into this post.