I agree with your sentiment from the perspective of the asker.
But if I'm the askee, I honestly don't know how to navigate those waters yet.
If someone asks me for help and I can find, through AI, a thread to explore, but I don't have time to explore it myself, should I not share?
Do I say "Have you tried X?", where X is the thing the LLM suggested? Should I pretend that I did not ask the LLM?
In the past, I could find some source and send them the link, and I wouldn't assume the person had exhausted the entire Google index. Sending a link isn't the same as LMGTFY.
Analogously, while "Claude says X" does sound as rude as lmgtfy, disclosing that your suggestion was found via llm is more akin to linking to a source, or "take this with a grain of salt".
Do they also say you're wrong, then proceed to "prove it" by pasting more AI slop that they don't understand?
The first time that happened, I had the courtesy to point out why the slop was incorrect... I don't know what that did for my social capital. I fear/suspect people are getting attached to their pet AI to the point of taking personal offence when called out.
Being the devil's advocate, it sounds like no one involved see any value in that exchange, therefore they don't care.
In that sense AI slop is a symptom, not a disease. But perhaps also a catalyst.
I really wonder if there is a sort of silver lining here, and in the long term low value activities will be filtered out of society. Though that borders on the AI maximalist view which I don't fully agree with.
Of course the glaring question is what value even is.