I agree that the bottom line really ought to be usefulness; if it's useful and doesn't waste my time, it's fine if you received it by the use of seer stones for all I care.

However, I don't blame anybody for having red lines like this:

1. Don't send me a big long string that is merely LLM output resulting from pasting a trivial prompt + text I already have access to (or my own words!). I know about Claude too, and if that's what I wanted I'd have done it myself.

2. Don't throw an AI-generated argument at me that you don't even fully understand.

3. If you're preparing information for me, and it's overly verbose and wastes my time, I'll be twice as mad if it's obvious AI than if it's obviously human. This is basically the article's point. The asymmetry of wasting an hour of my time reading a bunch of crap that took 15 seconds of your time should make it clear why this is antisocial behavior.

Indeed, yet the sender is relying on me to find the errors.

what's stopping someone to feed it to an llm and say 'make it simpler' and maybe run it twice.

Exactly. What I want is not effort. It is quality. The sweat of your brow is just gross salt water.

Use whatever tool does the job, and own it if you use the wrong tool and it sucks.