As I read it, your parent comment suggests that the distinction in quality and utility between human-authored and AI-generated content is merely "a matter of perspective", i.e. that there is no real distinction, and that they're both equally valuable.

If you actually meant something else, you should probably clarify.

I am not the person to whom you replied. I understood their comment to be about paradigms shifting through social awareness of the limits and opportunities of new technology.

It can be both true that right now predominantly low quality content emanates from LLMs and at some future time the highest quality material will come from those sources. Or perhaps even right now (the future is already here, just unevenly distributed).

If that was their reasoning, I tend agree. The equivalent of the Catholic Church in this metaphor is the presumption human-generated content's inherent superiority.

LLMs are inherently approximations of collective knowledge. They will never be better than their training sets. It's a statistical impossibility.

Suggesting clarification to suit your imaginary inferences seems puzzling. The parent post pointed out that perspectives on authorship have a historical precedent, I didn’t see the value judgement your reading suggested.