3 ms·
If they basically generated a desktop for themselves, what’s the chance they didn’t generate the article? I think pretty slim. Also, reading it is probably not
by jgilias 6mo ago
If they basically generated a desktop for themselves, what’s the chance they didn’t generate the article? I think pretty slim.
Also, reading it is probably not the intended use. It’s probably: “Hey Claude, give me a TLDR of this”
- swaits 6mo agoWho cares? It’s their content. If they hired an editor to help them, cool. If the content doesn’t suit you, move on. But the incessant “AI was used here, thus is it garbage” is long past time to enter the grave.
- geir_isene 6mo ago^^ some anti-luddism right there
- wiseowise 6mo agoLuddism is when you don't bother reading what someone didn't bother to write.
- geir_isene 6mo agoDictionaries on the second row down that aisle.
- jgilias 6mo agoI agree, yeah
- gbgarbeb 6mo ago[flagged]
- nullsanity 6mo ago[dead]
- nananana9 6mo agoMany people care, with good reason. We learned to notice LLM-isms is because they are, in fact, a very strong predictor that a piece of text is in fact garbage that's not worth your time reading. I usually stop reading at the first LLM-ism, but I found the premise of this post interesting enough to keep going - and guess what, the entire article was literally just "I prompt CC to make software tailored for me" blown out to 8 sections.
- wiseowise 6mo ago> Who cares? The parent comment does. Why do you care that they care?
- boomlinde 6mo agoThat no one cared enough to write it is usually a good indication that I should not care to read it either.
- lionkor 6mo ago> Who cares? I care, because it landed on the front-page of a website that I thought was about engineering and hacking, not prompting a no-code tool and spending 400 bucks on it, to get something nobody else wants.
- lpcvoid 6mo ago>But the incessant “AI was used here, thus is it garbage” is long past time to enter the grave. Nah, that rule is more relevant and true now than it was a year ago.