Not OP but my frustrations come from it being impossible to ignore and outright distracting.

I've found the same thing showing with Claude-coded/designed front ends that overuse the same semi-monospaced fonts, Blue/Yellow/Red palette and rounded corner borders. It isn't that it is bad, but it often isn't fit for purpose.

You're right it wont change anything, but authors shouldn't be surprised when people who care about their time/attention comment on low/no effort pieces.

To me it's a useful signal not to read an article that someone didn't bother to write.

Which is a shame as real insights are buried inside some of these articles, which if the author bothered to write in his own words could have reached an audience that would have appreciated them.

Writing is one of the areas where I want no LLM involvement.

The problem is that the second you suspect something is written by AI, its a pretty good signal that 50-80% of the text is empty of meaning. Maybe that will change, but LLMs are terrible and inefficient writers.

Only so much time in the day, its a quick signal to not waste anymore of it.

It's not about figuring out if it's LLM written though. The style is hard to read and annoying. With the kind of sentences GP was talking about it's actually harder to get the substance.

Yes, as soon as models come out that can write properly, we'll all instantly get over it. Until then we'll be having this discussion over and over, as many times as it is necessary.

It's both poor substance and style, in most cases (and this case.)

Pointing out they generated it at least encourages them to write a shorter article that says what they meant.

It means I don’t trust the substance. Whenever I try to use for technical writing like this, I catch it getting things wrong constantly.

But it's not about whether it was AI or human authored. That misses the point. We're all fatigued on the writing style. The same cadence and patterns; the same phrases and terms like "load-bearing". Used everywhere, they create a super fatiguing monoculture in all the writing. It's like if every illustration on the internet suddenly contained Garfield the cat.

Evaluating substance takes time - perhaps more than was invested in the article to begin with. So these tells are very distracting because as soon as I see them I wonder if the person who prompted the LLM even bothered to read the output. If they haven't, then I certainly shouldn't invest the time to determine if there is any substance.

No. As a human I like reading human written text over computer written text. I want something a human composed with thought put into it. Not something a human tried to save time with by having the machine write it.

What substance? That they consume a newer model from the same vendor?

the frustration is largely because the overall substance is quite poor since it is typically imprecise by nature.

Because quality of writing matters.

Good communicators learn to use the written word. Bad ones rely on mental crutches.

Good communicators get an audience, and bad ones won't.

You think it's a lost cause, but it's not, because people don't like this junk, because it is low quality and, on average, lacks substance.

The best minds in AI that I've seen all write their own words. They use AI to help them research or ideate, but what they write is their own.

Before assuming this is a "lost cause," consider why the smartest people in the room don't do it.

The syntax tells you there isn't any substance.

The substance is shit too with these LLM articles. Stuck in the box of the training set. Nothing new. Just regurgitation.

I have a counter proposition: don't fall for this constant suggestion that LLMs are an unavoidable future would you leave the techbros alone now pretty please, relentlessly keep reminding that we still don't think it's acceptable so people don't start to think this is okay since nobody complains anymore.

I appreciate these comments, they save me time for procrastinating elsewhere.

As a certified Gen Z member: respectfully, what the fuck are you on about?

The mythical Gen Z you are describing is the hyperbolic exaggeration that is equivalent to me describing all boomers as racist, all Gen X as entitled, all millennials as lazy, etc.

For me, it's Bottish

Have you ever met an actual Gen Z? They have no problem with swear words. Many of them love Key and Peele, whose humor is like 90% racist jokes.

If wokeness actually did capture a whole generation then why even bother complaining?

Very descriptive there heh

They also migrated and that also made the workflow cheaper.

It has everything to do with the article.

> they are isolated

This is a feature if your goal is to obtain many samples. Independence is critical. This makes it easier to accurately model the uncertainty of a decision.

I feel Claude Code has added (and removed?) a feature that forks a subagent from the parent context, so it’s still isolated but it’s more of a continuation of what you were doing in one narrow direction and then it dies. Rather than a blank slate with a prompt of what to do.