> First, once the text is on the page, it’s easy to passively let the approximate word suffice, rather than thinking about word choice in the same effortful, active way we do when generating prose de novo.

Meanwhile, me, as an English non-native speaker, ended up discussing two sentences I want send to HR for ten minutes while applying to a job.

I do believe there's generally a bias to accept something that's already written. The much bigger reason though is why you let somebody else write it to begin with.

It might just be that not thinking carefully about every sentence/wording was the exact thing that made you use AI to begin with.

> I spent a considerable amount of time over the past two weeks reviewing and improving a work document that was the output of an LLM.

I had the same experience with texts where I have a very detailed expectation of the desired result. This is just a general limitation. For code, there's the saying "the precise description of the solution is already the code". Describing X is a simplification of X, oftentimes it's fine guess the gaps. But when it's not, it didn't help to describe X, you have to manifest X itself.