If someone is able to put words in an order that sets my soul to singing, I don't care how they arrived at it -- unless they got it from someone else and are acting like it is their own.

If llms can be prompted to produce truly insightful writing that changes how I understand the world and the colors I see, then the prompters are welcome to the credit of such writing (because it certainly isn't a one-shot right now and requires thought to make it produce insight).

Given the trajectory of llms, it is likely they will in short order be producing writing that is very difficult to distinguish from genuinely thoughtful writing. It may still be slop, but it will be well-hidden slop -- which is to say it will not be so different from most of the writing currently produced by humans.

If, however, llms get to the point where very little prompting is required to open new fields of discovery in my mind, then we are confronted with a new problem: are such models deserving of some sort of status beyond a dumb tool?

If it is a problem for a person to post llm writing without attribution, it means llms are more than a dumb tool. There has to be a person to whom the attribution needs to be made.

This, for me, is the core of the debate: are llms a tool or are they an entity? If tool, no attribution necessary -- if an entity, attribution should be made - but also !!!!!!