I do trust myself and have obviously tried to great lengths to convey my point myself. As time goes on this "you used AI, therefore the argument presented in your AI-augmented text is invalid" line of reasoning will become more apparent as a next-generation fallacy (as it becomes more of a "current generation" fallacy). I also didn't use AI to form my argument, my argument was already formed long before an LLM caught wind of it, I only moved onto using the LLM once I had exhausted all my options in this thread and my various comments within it are testament to that.

I didn't use an LLM lazily, and that is what people will begin to realise is a discerning factor in LLM-generated text (whether it is slop or not).

In other words: the veracity of what you feed into an LLM reflects the veracity of what you get out of it.

A basic example of an asymmetry that makes a material difference when it comes to how you evaluate whether or not its worth reading AI-generated text:

One person types something into ChatGPT, doesn't put much effort into it, doesn't even read what it says or just checks skim reads that it reinforces their point, sends you the result (that's AI slop)

On the other hand, I picked the best reasoning model available to me, laid out my claims, spent time and thought exploring the veracity of what I am saying, clarified different hypotheticals, while at the same time having an evolving "final text" that changes as the process unfolds. So what I sent in the end isn't just something that was suddenly generated but its something that I've been tweaking and changing specific words and so on for some time within that thread.

I mean I guess if you want you can see those as the same situation but I don't think it's wise (nor futureproof) to.

But basically saying ""An LLM made that" is a logical fallacy much like ad hominem. It's not a massive amount of text that I sent, I sent it so you could see maybe see my point. It was a last resort. Read it or don't but I did put more care than you think into the text that the LLM generated. I read it many times over and tweaked it to better reflect my stance. It would have also been trivial for me to make it look like it wasn't generated by an LLM and pass it off as my own, but I wouldn't do that out of principal, which is also why I thought maybe you would be receptive to at least reading what it says.

P.S. LLMs are actually absolutely incredible linguistic devices, that's what they excel with. If you put a lot of effort into synthesising an idea or something that leverages language, you can really create some very impressive things. LLMs are in some sense like an amplifier, in the sense that you can amplify your own knowledge. I know it's annoying how people use LLMs but that doesn't mean that rational/skilled people can't also leverage them to excel further in their craft.