If the seed of intent is "convey XYZ details so they know them" then I can choose to go and learn those details any way I see fit - maybe even ask an LLM to summarise some data for me! - rather than having to ingest whatever their LLM use poops out and trying to digest the intent and content and figure it out.
It is about empowerment, rather than eating shit.
Attaching the prompt initially threw some people..."wait, your admitting to using AI..."..."err yea, unlike you with that PowerPoint you sent me last week". I sense this is the right way to go imho.
If you have found a prompt that gives a good result, then by sharing it with me I now have a tool that gives a good result.
The problem is not the use of LLMs. It is the "passing it off as your own work".
Output is not interchangeable with the prompt. In many cases, the prompt does not have the information the sender wanted to give you, and there is no guarantee that your LLM will give those information - or do it correctly - if you use the prompt yourself.
The entire value of here is that sender read the output and is vouching for it. This is where "bits of information" come from. If the sender cannot be trusted to verify and vouch for the LLM text they're sending to you, well, they're an asshole and you should rebuke them or find someone more considerate of others to talk with. Them giving you their prompt doesn't help you with anything.
But my point is that the prompt is the nearest encapsulation of the intent of the originator. Give me the data and the prompt. Vouch for the output if you like, but I want the source.
Here's the proximal prompt "Okay, take everything we've been talking about for 2 hours and apply those edits to the the final draft for publication."
What exactly does that give you?