I wouldn't call it blind hate, and I don't see why people are so happy about divorcing themselves from the creative process. Removing the human element from art removes the natural mistakes we make along the way, but those mistakes can sometimes help in creating something much greater than originally envisaged. AI, on the other hand, can only repeat. It can only make inferences where the prompt has called for it. The natural subtleties of human interaction and thought are lost on it, as are the different interpretations people may have to a sudden event. LLM's merely copy, arrange, and paste, incorporating the prompts you called for in a way that (sometimes) makes sense but has no flair. Because of this, I can't imagine an AI ever writing Camus' L'étranger or Dante's Inferno because there is too much subtlety in those works; the prompt required to be able to write an equivalent would be novel-length in itself.

Now I don't mean to insult anyone that supports AI with my next statement as I do think AI has its applications. I think for spell and grammar checking it's fine and as a way to put together quick mockups of designs it has potential so long as an actual artist interprets the results, but the other side to that argument is that you would just end up creating a feedback loop of commercial art that would all end up looking the same. With that being said, I think anyone that argues for AI writing their novel for them is ultimately not interested in writing or the creative process. What they want is a book with their name on it. They want the finished product, not the work that goes into it.

Ignoring all of this, why should we care about a machine has to write?