> I want to be honest about what happened next, because it matters
I like the project but using Claude sure didn't improve this article.
I like the project but using Claude sure didn't improve this article.
Maybe instead of expecting everyone to be good at everything, we cut this guy a little slack and let him use AI to help write?
Like if we have a problem with this being vibe coded, we’ve got a problem guys
It's also worth noting that the article has been edited in the last hour. Some section headers read a lot more clearly and naturally now (which is awesome!).
But, did AI actually _help_ in this specific phrase? I think it's OK to point out the quirks (and even drawbacks) of AI, even if we generally support the underlying motions of the person using it.
Am I utterly mistaken or was LLM-written prose more tolerable when it was GPT-4o and Opus 3.x writing it?
But that doesn't change that slop sucks to read.
It's mainstreamed. Spare the rest of us.
I do generally agree though that the author should edit or rewrite completely the AI output since he clearly put a lot of effort into the thing he made itself.
I mean, I'm the "critic" that started this thread and my comment doesn't say that, so what exactly is your problem? If it were poor writing for any other reason would you have the same kneejerk defensive reaction that you have about poor AI writing?
What do I think you should do? Just ignore it and let people who are interested in what the guy made have a discussion. If you are so keen to discuss AI use in blog posts, make a separate post about it and have an on-topic discussion rather than starting a circle jerk in every other post.
We're not professional editors, and this isn't a forum for aspiring writers looking to improve, we're just insulted that someone published thousands of words they didn't put any effort into while expecting others to slog through their slop.
It gets a lot less difficult when you don't outsource it to a chat bot at every opportunity. Communication matters. If you do it badly because you let a bot that can't write do it all for you people should complain. The fact that lots of people will do it doesn't mean that readers should lower their standards.
I'm never going to complain about people using AI to write their private documents, but if someone publishes something, explicitly for others to read, and what they published is annoying to read and that wasn't the goal of the "writer" they should probably know about it. Even if they never check the comments, those of us who were made to read that slop can commiserate with each other.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Find something interesting to respond to instead.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
> Omit internet tropes.
It's likely that but for LLMs, the article would not have been written. I'm glad it was written. It's also true that it's unpleasant to read LLM-written prose for those of us who have to read it all day for work.
I don't think it's shallow because writing quality isn't important, I think it's a shallow dismissal of the writing quality because it doesn't discuss anything interesting or substantive about the writing quality.
Also, what about the other guidelines? Comments should meet all of the guidelines, not just some of them. (I do get that some of these are borderline.)
If you feel a given comment is not within community guidelines you are free to flag it. I do not believe that we agree about the substantive value of noting an article was written with the heavy assistance of an LLM. I usually look at comments prior to reading an article; it's an effective time-saving measure.
I do not accept your attempt to make a blanket ban on noting an article was LLM-written.