It took 50+ prompts to get it to this state. I’d say that counts as putting enough care into it to be my voice.
It sounds like that's what you've done here, in which case I don't feel that you are wasting my time by having me read something that you haven't even reviewed yourself.
As long as a human put time and effort into making something, then I'm willing to consider putting my effort toward reading/watching. If someone just spends 5 seconds to throw a prompt out there, that's when I get annoyed.
Why? Do you care more about the origin than the quality?
Because they are linked. AI content can be generated so frivolously and at such volume you easily be overwhelmed by low quality garbage. Humans can also generate crap, but a much slower pace and I think that AI being so good at crap generation that it will push out any humans in the space that used to meek out any work here. So, what we are left with is AI content that is mostly low-effort crap, with maybe some rigorously reviewed bits that are good here and there, and the human-content which will mostly be people who care enough to make quality content otherwise they would be already posting AI schlock.
The end is that using AI as a proxy indicator for garbage will be right more than its wrong. So if I see something is AI generated, I should give it a pass and not waste my limited time resource on it.
That is not what happened here: the author provided a lot more input than the finished article, and used the LLM to help crunch that down to as good a version as possible of the points there wanted to make.
so that if it has sloppy mistakes or doesn't reflect your thinking well, you do want others to trust your work less?