No. Anyone who values it knows how to get the same on a free tier or via their own subscription. I'd made an exception for things like a pdf of a fully drafted science paper that might have involved days or weeks of steering, but 99.9% of AI-written pastes aren't that.

An edited page (from a book, website, whatever) is significantly more valuable because it's consistent, even if it's wrong it's a fixed quantity that others can point to the flaws in rather than than being epehemerally generated.

I don't know why you think your $200/month subscription is so valuable. It's only as good as your prompts. Also, see point #1.

It's usually wrong.

Most of us here on HN also have access to those $200/mo models and we can prompt them ourselves if we are interested in an LLM's take on the question.

Also, its just grating to read claudisms when you are expecting to read a human's prose.

Because interpersonal communication is based on effort and collaboration. If you just copy and paste an AI output in response to me making a human effort to communicate, you're essentially saying that my time is not valuable to you and you cannot be bothered one single solitary fuck to literally even utilize your brain and come up with some sort of response. People use the internet to collaborate with other people, not just talk to a robot. If I wanted to talk to a robot, I could ask Claude myself.

If you can't be bothered to write it, then there is literally no reason for me to read it.

Most of the time I see AI pastes it's "I saw someone describe 20% of a problem they're having so I pasted it into Claude and now I'm pasting Claude's vague overview of how maybe to fix it", which is absolutely worthless.