I found myself writing "s/apparently/according to Claude 3.7 Sonnet/".
There needs to be a word.
(That string is programmer code for "whenever I write 'apparently' switch it to 'according to a possibly-hallucinating LLM.')
The essay in which I found myself writing that substitution doesn't use "apparently," except for asides or metaphors, so I don't think I'd be considered guilty of off-loading "think about what you're saying." BUT that's why I wrote "apparently" in the first place: it's the equivalent of the programmer's fundamental if ... then:
In an aside, that's fine: it you later learned it was false you'd just put a line through it. If it's used in the central argument, it's a red flag. If it's in a linking thought, it's a a flag, but it's from the author. For a thoughtful programmer, it's always balanced with an else:. (Most of the popular languages allow an implicit "don't do anything" but, apparently, congrats to Go, Pascal, Fortran , and COBOL! <-- see what I did there? (Double parenthetically, Rust could also be in that list and is probably more popular than Go but all of this is an aside)).
Balancing if ... thens is important to strong arguments. That and wording is why writing an email you don't want misconstrued is difficult. ("Cross your 't' and dot your 'i's" or, more commonly, "cover your ass").
These "apparently"s are important to the extent that LLMs are used to replace a "quick Google" and they indicate an important new thing under the sun.
There needs to be a word.