Because they’re the ones asking the question. You can flip this around and ask why should the person put time into researching and answering the question for OP?
Because they where asked. They don't need to spend time, if they don't want to. They can just say: "I don't know." or if they want to be more helpful "I don't know, but I can ask a LLM, if you'd like". If someone answers they should at least have something to say.
If they have no obligation then an AI answer, if it’s right, is better than no answer as it gives OP some leads to research into. OP can always just ignore the AI answer if they don’t trust it, they don’t have to validate it.
No, its not better. They where asked, not the LLM.
Do you always think like that? Like... If some newspaper start printing LLM generated slop news articles. Would you say, "It is the responsibility of the reader to research if anything in it is true or not?" No, its not! A civilization is build on trust, and if you start eroding that kind of trust, people will more and more distrust each other.
People that assert something should be able to defend it. Otherwise we are in a post-fact/post-truth era.
Fair enough, but etiquette on AI is new and not universal. We don’t know that the person meant to disrespect OP. The mature thing to do would be for OP to say that they felt disrespected by that response instead of pretending like it’s fine and reinforcing the behavior which will lead to that person continuing to do it.
That really depends on the history and relationship between them. We don't know that, so I will not assume anything. They could have had previous talks where they stated that they don't like LLM generated replies. But this is beside the point.
All I assumed is that they likely have not agreed to an LLM reply beforehand.
It’d be like if someone used a new / obscure slur, the right thing to do is inform them how it is offensive, not pretend it’s fine and start using it in the conversation to fuck with them . If they keep using it after you inform them, then yeah fuck them, but make sure your not normalizing it yourself too.
No, this is a false comparison. If I want to talk to a person, and ask for their input on a matter. I want their input, not them asking their relatives or friends. I think this is just normal etiquette and social assumptions. This is true even before LLMs where a thing.
The rest of your comment seems to be an argument against getting answers from the Internet in general these days. A person doing research is just as likely as an agent to come across bogus LLM content, and a person also isn’t getting actual real world data when they are researching on the Internet.
Well... No... My point is that LLMs (or your agents you are going on about, which are just LLMs, that where able to populate their context with content or random internet searches) are making research generally more difficult. But it is still possible. Nowadays you can no longer trust the goodwill on researchers, you have to get to the bottom of it. Looking up statistics, or doing your own experiments, etc. A person is generally superior to any LLM agent, because they can do that. People in a specific field understand the underlying rules, and don't just produce strings of words, that they make up as they go. People can research the reputation of certain internet sites, and look further and deeper.
But I do hope that people will become more aware of these issues, and learn the limits of LLMs. So that they know they cannot rely on them. I really wish that copy&pasting LLM generated content without validating and correcting its output will stop.