My point was that LLM written articles tend to long and verbose. Might as well have my LLM condense it into bullet points to consume the information faster.
I can appreciate clever writing by humans because another human did it. Maybe I'd still critique it for being convoluted. But there'd be some kind of interaction with me and another person, even though I might leave with a negative opinion/feeling.
If an LLM tries clever writing, it's just the result of a statistical model using its dataset. There's no joy in reading the extra fluff because I know there's no-one that spent the time on doing it. In fact, I know that the person on the other side didn't want to spent the time doing it. And it leaves me wondering why I should even read all of that in the first place. If we're using AI to be more efficient, why not have it just generate boring, efficient, articles that just give you the information without pretending to present any opinions or jokes.
TL;DR if you want to be efficient, be efficient; don't generate fluff
It's already writing interesting magazine articles. You just don't recognize them as being written by LLMs.
Correct me if I misunderstand your implication, but it seems to be "I have seen poorly-written articles with obvious LLM tells and factual mistakes, therefore LLMs are incapable of writing good articles". It's the same logic people use to say things like "criminals are so stupid, just look at these prisoners", not realizing that their sample selects for incompetence.
There's no incentive whatsoever for any institution to credit an LLM for an excellent article, and in fact there are many incentives to avoid disclosure of any AI use. Typing "write me an article about $TOPIC, make no mistakes" into ChatGPT yields quite different results than the LLM-driven content generation pipelines major institutions have already been using for well over a year now.
Nobody's saying it should take care of the entire process, but the idea of banning it from all parts of your process is an emotionally charged, short-sighted decision.
> Nobody's saying it should take care of the entire process, but the idea of banning it from all parts of your process is an emotionally charged, short-sighted decision.
Well they didn't do that, and in fact specifically mentioned how they are not doing that. So what are you even talking about?
AI is great for some things. It is not currently great (or even remotely passable) at writing interesting magazine articles.