I fortunately haven't been in this position, but I imagine that proofreading #LLM -generated texts must be a miserable experience.

I fortunately haven't been in this position, but I imagine that proofreading #LLM -generated texts must be a miserable experience.

With texts written by human authors, you can usually contact them and ask them: "What were your thought processes when using this sentence?" Since LLM do not "think", you cannot interrogate them on this, and thus it falls you to give meaning to their words.

Furthermore, with human-written texts, both the original author and the proofreader share responsibility for the quality of the text - with the author having the bulk of the responsibility, while the proofreader is responsible for polishing it.

But since LLM are intended as a tool for evading responsibility in its entirety, all the responsibility for the quality of the text lies with the proofreader! And who would want that for LLM-generated slop?