3 ms·
Did anyone else feel turned off by the AI-written writing style of this? (Grammarly claims it’s 13% AI generated, although I’m not sure how accurate that is.)
by trollbridge 2y ago
Did anyone else feel turned off by the AI-written writing style of this? (Grammarly claims it’s 13% AI generated, although I’m not sure how accurate that is.)
- ethbr1 2y agoIt's a 30-second read, so it didn't particularly bother me. I've done consulting in esoteric products, so the content is accurate and a useful cautionary tale. Imho, the skill gap is the original sin. If the team inheriting ownership is seriously underskilled, no amount of knowledge transfer is going to fix that -- so stick to whatever is dirt simple and most obvious in language du project.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agowhat is rounding error for detecting AI generated text, I would say 13% isn't enough to complain.
- sevensor 2y agoI skimmed it; I didn’t think it was ai necessarily, but in between topic sentences it was boring filler no matter how it was written. Even at a high level though, it’s poorly reasoned. If quality code is not maintainable, what are your criteria for quality exactly? It’s basically an ad for consulting services targeted at people without strong critical reasoning skills.
- yodon 2y ago"I think this is AI" is the least interesting, lowest-signal comment one can make here on HN, beating out perennial contenders "I hate their scroll bar", "this site hijacks my back button", and "why does this site require JavaScript?" If you can actually make an AI detector that works, do that and print money for yourself. Otherwise accept that all "AI detectors" have massive false positive rates, your intuition included. If visitors like what they see on the page, they will up vote it. If they don't, they won't. That's how HN works.