At any rate even if you wish to judge the idea rather than the way someone wrote it down then I still think LLMs don't help.

Because the one thing I definitely agree with, the bull of the effort behind putting an idea in writing isn't the act of writing itself.

Pangram found the breaks properly too.

I get this is tongue in cheek, but it's so wrong that it needs pointing out. Even if that is a thought in their head, they clearly have to have others in order to produce the text.

But in general, checking that a human wrote it is economic as much as anything else: attention is currency limited by time and energy, AI effort is abundant and therefore low value, human effort is less abundant and therefore more valued. Pyrite can look pretty but it's not what people want.

But when they do that, you can tell.

Those who favor human writing are looking for writing where the words are the product of a human mind rather than an LLM. The requirement for every character to be the product of a finger pressing a key is not something I've seen. Alternative input methods doesn't make a writing non-human. Spellcheck and probably even some amount of auto-complete are also generally considered to be fine. Anyone checking for keystrokes is using it as a proxy for human creation, not valuing the physical motion itself.

The pro-AI example is a writer spending hours tweaking a single AI output then later re-arranging and rewriting the piece before publishing. While this would probably still set off some AI-detectors, it does at least include some human effort. Presumably this effort will not be appreciated and readers will assume that the poster simply copied the response directly from their LLM of choice. It may seem a bit unfair to ignore the human effort in revising, but it's a reasonable assumption to make because almost nobody is using LLMs in this way.

Perhaps there's a reasonable amount of LLM use which would be considered a writing aid rather than a writing replacement, but the vast majority are simply mass producing slop so I sympathize with those who favor a blanket ban as a response.

When I get materials that are clearly AI generated, I look at them as if there was less effort put into it.

But that is irrational. If it was verified for accuracy, and edited for conciseness, and addresses the task at hand, does it matter?

So, yes, humans can also expand text in a mechanical way. I just don’t want to read expanded text. So really the question is “is this text expanded?”. Pre-LLM very little was. Post-LLM much is and has certain distinct flavours that are detectable.

But I’m happy to say that I also don’t like human expanded text and the content in OP certainly reads expanded. It’s like inlining functions everywhere and then writing unrelated comments around them. Not interesting.

After all, if I just want to read text there are reams of content marketing blog posts and SEO keyword concatenations that I could go read. Or to put it in a different way: SaaS dropshipping shemale singles near you this one mother found a puppy buy crypto toys cheap car loans zero down furniture sale foreclosure mesothelioma lawyers car Trump USAID ethereum get rich quick

Plagiarism will always be plagiarism.