If I could differentiate between it, then what the real person wrote or said would still have a separate value, even if the prose was bad.
Consider a normal criminal court case. Most witnesses don't know how to express themselves well neither in the written nor spoken word. Their testimony still holds value and gives important information.
Yes it would mimic real human output. That's why we have to verify if the subject matter is important. Knowing who to trust or not is not easy, if we have to be sure we have to do some work.
I still don’t get how this helps you differentiate between them… or do you mean to assume both are genuine human outputs regardless, if the information proves to be genuinely true?
Consider a normal criminal court case. Most witnesses don't know how to express themselves well neither in the written nor spoken word. Their testimony still holds value and gives important information.