zlacker

>>flornt+(OP)
I think it's fair to use AI as an editor, to get feedback about how your ideas are packaged.

It's also fair to use it as a clever dictionary, to find the right expressions, or to use correct grammar and spelling. (This post could really use a round of corrections.)

But in the end, the message and the reasoning should be yours, and any facts that come from the LLM should be verified. Expecting people to read unverified machine output is rude.

>>nicbou+v2
This approach is how I prefer to use it too. I write, it gives feedback, I revise based on which parts I thought it was right about. If I don't want to read raw LLM output, why would I make anyone else do it?