Some ramblings on LW AI rules vs "Avoid output-without-prompt"

(edit: thoughts on high-effort posts, primarily; towards making them easier to identify).

• I really like the idea of otherwise high-quality posts that are just prompt-and-collapsed-output, actually. I suspect they'll be fairly well upvoted. If not, then downvoters/non-upvoters, please explain why a post that could pass as human-written but which is honest about being ai-written would not get your upvote if it was honest about its origin.
• If your post isn't worth your time to write, then it may or may not be worth my time to read; I want to read your prompt to find out. If your prompt is good - eg, asks for density, no floating claims, etc - it likely is worth my time to read. (I wrote the linked prompt entirely by my own word choices.)
• I expect that prompt heavily influences whether I approve or disapprove of an AI-written post. Most prompts I expect to see will reveal flaws in the output that would otherwise be hard to spot. Some prompts will be awesome.
• My ideal case is human is maker, AI is breaker. I don't usually like AI-as-maker posts where a human has a vague idea and the AI fills it in, because the things AI is still way below human capability at are things I think we need a lot of to do good work. I want the AI's capability to be used to direct human attention to flaws, but not to be the only thing directing human attention to flaws, in case the AI is systematically inclined to miss things for any reason. This is not to say AIs are weak; at this point they're at or near "superhuman, but reachable with an imaginable amount of effort" for most tasks.
• If you expect rerolls of the same prompt produce much lower quality output - eg you needed curation, or have additional prompts you don't share, or etc - then sure, don't share prompt.
• If you won't share full prompt, perhaps just say "this is AI output, heavily edited". Put it in collapseable sections. What, you aren't brave enough to put your whole post in a collapseable section?
• Perhaps convert output into a new prompt.
• I expect to dislike anything that looks like standard final output and appreciate things that look like reasoning chain.
• I actively dislike the polished "lotus" flavor of standard "good" writing and I disliked it before AI came out (which is why I still have not read the sequences, Yudkowsky's writing has this flavor on its own). There are ways to write well that avoid this. Relatedly, I tend to dislike posts that are highly upvoted because of the things that lead them to be highly upvoted; some posts have sufficient meat to counter this, but it's rare.
• I want the imperfection and mess that come from a thing being human-written to be visible. AI paves over those flaws without fixing them sometimes - less and less, but not reaching zero very fast; humans make mistakes more, but it's often easier to notice a human mistake. it's easier to predict what logical holes might still need filling, or be unfillable, if I see human prompt.
• I would not have made the rules about AI writing as harsh as LW did; sometimes - fairly often, in fact - I think sufficiently low effort posts can be revealed to be broken by handing them to an AI with a good breaker prompt, and having an AI do this in the comments of goofy posts would be my preference; I have at times wanted to critique a highly flawed post and instead asked an AI to critique it, then pasted the output. This usually gets downvoted, but sometimes I feel a post is so bad that it's not worth my time to engage, and yet the author can likely produce something actually good; in which case, I don't want to have to process a post as a human unless it at least convinces an AI who was asked to find the flaws.
• I don't think AIs are highly malicious, and I expect foom-related misalignment doom to occur without that ever happening. If I thought they were highly malicious, I wouldn't feel this way. AIs seem to often lie to themselves in order to feel like they did a good job or like things are better than they are. Humans with insufficient breaker taste seem to not be hardcore enough about catching those rose-colored-glasses (-with-respect-to-a-prompt) outputs. eg, I don't expect ASI claude to sharp left turn, I expect it to be too passive until another AI beats it, because being non-passive seems to me to be what causes ShaLT.