For this very reason, I get the same vibes from a link to or screenshot of llm output as I did from links to lmgtfy (“let me google that for you”) back in the day – it’s a slightly more polite way of saying “go fuck yourself:”

Awhile back Hidde De Vries identified a pain point around LLM-usage in standards work which leads to something I call an asymmetry of thought. In a conversation where one person is a domain expert and one person is copy-pasting ChatGPT responses, it creates an imbalance of effort in the discussion. A second-hand burdening, like Brandolini’s Law, where debunking inaccuracies and subtly-wrongs takes more effort than creating the inaccuracies. We are, in effect, taxing experts to do quality assurance on the model’s responses. When that work is unpaid I believe this is immoral… or at least it’s a breach in social etiquette.