Excellent question. But, I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
If you view philosophy and language to be a tool that helps us to model reality, then what you are after is the best model you can find in language, not a conversation with another person. Language models are tools that might be seen analogously to arithmetical averages. If you take a corpus and feed a machine, and what it spits out is a weighted linguistic artifact, you are indirectly have a conversation with people (as I don't think we have to worry about feedback loops yet). You are reading language produced by a fictional person who is the weighted average of many people. But our models of reality aren't built on what other people say exclusively, but how our models evolve in the face of others' linguistic artifacts (testimony), what we perceive happens in the world (consciousness), our memories, and how our model of reason functions. If a language model produces a claim that challenges our belief, that should be taken just as seriously because we are vetting our model, not someone else's model.
For instance, if a language model produces the claim that 'our models of reality may not be true or false but adequate or inadequate', and that challenges us to think about whether it makes sense to call an entire theory true or false (does truth conditional semantics apply to theories in the same way it does mere claims, and why or why not?) then we can improve our model regardless of whether the linguistic artifact was written by one person, or by software using an algorithm to "sum up" the thoughts of many people. If we have an insight into our own thinking, what difference does it make how the claim or question was generated?
There are absolutely reasons to connect with people through conversations. I often lament how few people willingly engage in critical thinking and exegetic discourse (reality TV holds human attention in a way Kant does not), and I wish I had more relationships built around robust discourse of ideas. I think the agorra was just as much about community as it was debate, but if an LLM brings to light this deficiency in our routines, it is not the LLM, but the deficiency that is the problem. Now, if we answer questions to help others, and it turns out others are merely software systems, then it does undermine our motivations for contributing to a forum. But, if our motivations for participating in a forum are to improve ourselves, then any source of inspiration for improvement should be cherished. Quite frankly, LLMs seem to provide text more sophisticated than people just starting out on the path of critical thinking anyway.
Could ChatGPT etcetera undermine community by making statements less significant for us?
So, yes, absolutely, if our motivations have eusocial impulses like helping others, or forming bonds with those with whom we communicate, surely. It's a form of intellectual catfishing. But on a forum like this, where people are loathe to go beyond mere postings and where bonds aren't actually formed, what difference does it make? I would be disappointed to find out a pastor whose exhortations I am fond of relies on ChatGPT, but perhaps it should be lauded that someone who wants to inspire looks to cure a deficiency in his rhetorical prowess. I would be disappointed if I were to have a pen pal, only to find out that the riveting conversation was a ruse to eventually try to defraud me out of money, but here too, is the problem the language, or the intention of the person wielding the language model?
I would say that using a language model is a lot like how people present themselves visually to others. There are some who will go to great lengths to alter their appearance and conceal the alterations in a bid to get what they want, and others will ignore such alterations completely. Is that any different than from virtue signaling in conversation or using autocorrect? When you boil it down, what you are dealing with is a fundamentally unvarnished Wittgensteinian truth: language is a game, and you still have to figure out what game you want to play and why. An LLM is just another tool that can be used in the game, one that makes you think more critically. And thinking more critically sometimes is a good thing.