Since most literature is in one way or another rather generic (especially if something is published as series) I think it's only logically to use LLMs sooner or later. If someone comes up with a some novel plot, that sells really well, soon more writers will publish something similar to jump on the bandwagon.
If I like reading something it really doesn't matter for me if what I read just follows some generic formula or was written by a LLM, a parrot (the LLM of the bird world), a whale or a loaf of bread.
I really don't see a label like "Human Authored" as a sign of quality. There are so many badly written books by human authors.
Besides..."Human Authored"? Why not "human written" or "written by human(s)"?
Wiktionary defines "to author" as:
Well, a person who uses a LLM to create e.g. a novel still authors this LLM-created work, but may not have written a single sentence by him/herself.
Interesting is the definition of thesaurus.com of "to author":
Is creating some prompts while using a LLM already considered writing a computer program these days? If so, it's "authoring" and since a human wrote these prompts it's all "human authored".
English isn't my native tongue but I think using the label "Human Authored" is really stupid since it's ambiguous.
The covers of books in recent years look very generic as well. If there's a book that's sells very well, soon more books covers will look more or less the same. There are books I wouldn't touch based on their cover.