> I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation.
The extrapolation led to something I didn't imply. If you're making the extrapolation to add a point in addition to what I said, I'm sure that'd have been very welcome if you hadn't posed it in a combative manner that comes across as a 'take down' of my comment.
Going back to where it all began:
> Using an LLM to generate a post with the implication it is the author's own thoughts is the quintessential definition of intellectual laziness.
Extrapolation, yes. But non sequitur because my comment not even remotely implied generating a whole post using LLM. So your extrapolation stands well on its own. I just don't see the need to pose it as a sort of "take down" on my comment.
What I find really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So we must be in agreement? Yet you manage to find disagreements where there are none and be combative about it. Well done, sir!
> And you might want to review same after originally authoring
I have. I've found nothing in the guidelines that forbid me from expressing my frustrations over the abundant supply of trite comments. Nothing there forbids me from begging the HN overlords to discourage trite comments about LLM-written text. They already discourage comments about tangential issues like website format, name collisions, back-button issues. They might as well discourage comments about LLM-written text. That was my request. The HN overlords may not pay heed to my request and that's fine. But after reading the guidelines, I don't see why I cannot make the request I've in my mind.