It destroys the previously implicit contract that the writer actually spent a decent amount of thought and time into the writing, and that the ideas expressed are theirs and original.<p>I don’t mind <i>good</i> usage of LLM assisted writing, but if the author can’t even be bothered identifying the most obvious AI tells, I use it as a proxy that the author probably but very little effort into the article.<p>It’s also often a horribly verbose style, where the same ideas could be presented with 20% of the prose.<p>It’s also ruining the entire experience on web communities (although here on HN the moderation team seems to get a hold of keeping them at bay at this point, <i>much</i> appreciated).<p>All in all, it’s objectively a net negative for the readers, and serves only the author.<p>I prefer original, less coherent articles that are genuine and where I know the ideas expressed are really the author’s and not the LLM’s inference.<p>Last but not least, I don’t think the grandparent you’re replying to was particularly hateful in the grand scheme of things.