I think this is both valuable, and yet, it is also the key to why the forest will become dark.

I'm not speculating - I have to work with these things so darn much that the tells are blindingly obvious - and the tells are well-known, ex. there's a gent who benchmarks "it's not just x - it's y" shibboleths for different models.

However, in a rigorous sense I am speculating: I cannot possibly know an LLM was used.

Thus, when an LLM is used, I am seeing an increasing fraction of conversation litigating whether is appropriate, whether it matters, if LLMs are good, and since anyone pointing it out could be speculating, now, the reaction hinges on how you initially frame this observation.

Ex. here, I went out of my way to make a neutral-ish comment given an experience I had last week (see other comment by me somewhere down stream)

Lets say I never say LLM, instead, frame it as "Doesn't that just mean it's a convention?" and "How are there so many game-changers?", which is obvious to audience is a consequence of using an LLM, and yet, also looks like you're picking on someone (are either of those bad writing? I only had one teacher who ever would take umbrage at somewhat subtle fluff like this)

Anyways this is all a bunch of belly-aching to an extent, you're right, and its the way to respond. There's a framing where the only real difficulty here is critiquing the writing without looking like you're picking on someone.

EDIT: Well, except for one more thing: what worries me the most when I see someone using the LLM and incapable of noticing tells and incapable of at least noticing the tells are weakening writing is...well, what else did they miss? What else did the LLM write that I have to evaluate for myself? So it's not so much as somewhat-bad writing, 90%+ still, that bothers me: its that idk what's real, and it feels like a waste of time even being offered it to read if I have to check everything.