> Are you proposing that an LLM can extract some meaning from your initial prompt that a human being couldn't?
No, I’m asserting that an LLM can help formulate ideas in a coherent, understandable way. You can give it a brain dump with a rough outline for an argument and it fill in the details. If the argument isn’t to your liking, you can try again. But the end result is basically equivalent to the human-written equivalent.
It’s fine to disagree with my analogy. But I find it a little ironic your dismissal of the analogy is a non sequitur. The invalidness of the analogy doesn’t directly follow, logically, from the fact that the written word and the spoken word are both mediums.
No, I’m asserting that an LLM can help formulate ideas in a coherent, understandable way. You can give it a brain dump with a rough outline for an argument and it fill in the details. If the argument isn’t to your liking, you can try again. But the end result is basically equivalent to the human-written equivalent.